1Cor2:14 is not "Calvinistic"
- Thread starter Ben johnson
- Start date
- Status
cygnusx1
Jacob the twister.....
- Apr 12, 2004
- 56,208
- 3,104
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
The Spirit of God declares that:
-
[*]every imagination of man’s heart from infancy is evil (Gen. 6:5; 8:2 1)
[*]there is none righteous, none that understands, none that seeks after God (Ps. 14:3; Rom 3:10—11)
[*]all are useless, corrupt, void of the fear of God, full of fraud, bitterness, and all kinds of iniquity, and have fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3)
[*]the carnal mind is enmity against God and does not even leave us the power of thinking a good thought (Rom. 8:7; 2 Cor. 3:5)
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
cygnusx1
Jacob the twister.....
- Apr 12, 2004
- 56,208
- 3,104
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
we are NOT born of faith , we are born of PROMISE , as are all the Elect. Just as Isaac was born of promise , so are we ;
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. Gal 4:28
God promised Abraham UNCONDITIONALLY a Son , a son even from a dead womb , Abraham's faith did not in any sense make this so , Abraham received this promise by faith ... our birth into the Kingdom is a SOVEREIGN matter , the wind blows where it wills , so is it with everyone born of the Spirit , not of mans will or efforts , born-again according to God's outstanding riches of Grace . Deny God's Sovereignty in bearing children at His pleasure and you turn to the heresy of decisional regeneration or baptismal regeneration.
we are "justified by faith" , but never does scripture say we are regenerated by faith !
we receive salvation by faith ; in contrast we are regenerated by a FREE decision of The Lord.
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. Gal 4:28
God promised Abraham UNCONDITIONALLY a Son , a son even from a dead womb , Abraham's faith did not in any sense make this so , Abraham received this promise by faith ... our birth into the Kingdom is a SOVEREIGN matter , the wind blows where it wills , so is it with everyone born of the Spirit , not of mans will or efforts , born-again according to God's outstanding riches of Grace . Deny God's Sovereignty in bearing children at His pleasure and you turn to the heresy of decisional regeneration or baptismal regeneration.
we are "justified by faith" , but never does scripture say we are regenerated by faith !
we receive salvation by faith ; in contrast we are regenerated by a FREE decision of The Lord.
Upvote
0
cygnusx1
Jacob the twister.....
- Apr 12, 2004
- 56,208
- 3,104
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Gotta laugh at these posters (2) WHO ARGUE WEEK IN WEEK OUT THAT "ALL" MEANS EVERYONE , AND THAT "WORLD " MEANS EVERY SINGLE PERSON ;
but when it comes to Romans 3 , where God The Holy Spirit has clearly spelled out no limitations to those who DO NOT seek God .... "No , Not One " ..... the Arminian shouts , "it doesn't mean everyone , many are righteous and can seek God " !!!!!!
that is some mental denial going on there
but when it comes to Romans 3 , where God The Holy Spirit has clearly spelled out no limitations to those who DO NOT seek God .... "No , Not One " ..... the Arminian shouts , "it doesn't mean everyone , many are righteous and can seek God " !!!!!!
that is some mental denial going on there
Upvote
0
nobdysfool
The original! Accept no substitutes!
- Feb 23, 2003
- 15,018
- 1,006
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Someone has trouble with plain language.....Words mean things, and the passages Cygnusx1 quoted need no interpretation. They plainly say what they say, and it's not hard to understand.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
nobdysfool
The original! Accept no substitutes!
- Feb 23, 2003
- 15,018
- 1,006
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Gotta laugh at these posters (2) WHO ARGUE WEEK IN WEEK OUT THAT "ALL" MEANS EVERYONE , AND THAT "WORLD " MEANS EVERY SINGLE PERSON ;
but when it comes to Romans 3 , where God The Holy Spirit has clearly spelled out no limitations to those who DO NOT seek God .... "No , Not One " ..... the Arminian shouts , "it doesn't mean everyone , many are righteous and can seek God " !!!!!!
that is some mental denial going on there
Yup! We get falsely accused of throwing 5-way denials all the time, and here is a clear example of a true 5 way denial that they themselves use. There are others, too.
Upvote
0
- Apr 5, 2003
- 6,713
- 469
- 47
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
And with this you once again undermine the doctrine of Original Sin. You claim to believe in man's total depravity, but your statements implicitly contradict it.
Supposing all men are indeed given the opportunity to hear the Gospel and repent, and a great deal of men do. On what basis then are those men condemned to hell: for their sinfulness or merely for the rejection of the free gift of salvation in the Gospel? If the latter, you now have the problem of the denial of the Gospel being a sin (which necessarily means the acceptance of the Gospel is an act of righeousness). If the former, then you must turn your own question upon yourself: should they be condemned to hell for sinning when they "couldn't choose anything else?" If you say they could have chosen not to sin at all, then you have no further grounds to object to being coupled with the heretic Pelagius. If you say they indeed could not have because of Original Sin, then you have already undermined your own objection to our doctrine.
So here are your choices:
1. Acknowledge that the acceptance of the Gospel is an act of righteousness without which no man can be saved.
2. Acknowledge that Original Sin proves forth the notion that men are held accountable for things they "could not have chosen other than"
3. Acknowledge your rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin and put forth the Pelagian notion that man is born with the moral capacity for perfect righteousness.
Which will it be, Ben? Only #2 allows you to maintain a shred of orthodoxy by acknowledging that this particular argument against us is fundamentally flawed.
Ben, you have no business whatsoever appealing to the Greek in support of your argument. You have demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that you lack any coherent understanding of NT Greek, as evidenced by your persistent unwillingness to either provide a single shred of scholarly evidence that the Lord is the subject of the Greek verb choreo in 2 Peter 3:9 or to admit that you were mistaken. So long as you persist in such obvious and demonstrable error, you have ZERO credibility when it comes to appealing to the original Greek.
As to the passage at hand, this has already been explained numerous times over. He is just in that His mercy in salvation does not involve letting the sins of man go unpunished, for His justice is satisfied in the Cross of Christ. He is the justifier in that He Himself provided the means of satisfaction for men that they could not provide themselves, again in the Cross of Christ.
Romans 3:28 is by no means any sort of prooftext against the doctrines of election and predestination.
You speak as though man's reprobation were a positive action on the part of God when that is not at all what we teach. God does not "unelect" anybody. He simply passes over them, leaving them in the state of sinfulness to which they were born by the sin of Adam. Moreover, as God is not the one who creates the evil in the heart of man to bring about those sins, He is certainly justified in His righteous wrath toward them for such things for they proceed forth from man's wicked heart.
Your real issue is with the doctrine of Original Sin. It is becoming clear that this orthodox doctrine is incompatible with the theology of "Responsible Grace."
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Quoted by NBF:
Yup! We get falsely accused of throwing 5-way denials all the time, and here is a clear example of a true 5 way denial that they themselves use. There are others, too.
There is a big difference between "throwing a Five-Way*", and "accommodating two apparently disparate verses in Scripture".Yup! We get falsely accused of throwing 5-way denials all the time, and here is a clear example of a true 5 way denial that they themselves use. There are others, too.
For instance, when the Bible says "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" (Ex10:1), but it also says "Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart" (Ex9:34), what is the meaning? And when it says "No one seeks" (Rom3:10), but also says "seek Him and you will find Him" (Jer29:11-13), and "God rewards those WHO seek Him, who come to Him BY belief" (Heb11:6), what understanding accommodates both?
That's different from reading one verse, and thinking "not really".
...like thinking that Rom11:21-23, or 1Pet1:5-10, or 2Jn1:7-9, or James5:19-20, or 1Jn2:26-28, or Col2:6-8, or Heb3:6-14 & 4:11, and many more --- thinking each is "NOT REALLY" speaking of falling-from-salvation.
* For the passer-by, the Five-Ways are:
1. Subjects were not really truly saved in the first place (maybe only "professing")
2. Subjects did not really fall (might be "unsteadfast/deceived/back-slidden", but stayed saved)
3. Two groups; one TRULY saved, the other NEVER-saved-lurking-AMONGST-the-saved (sudden subject-change). They did not really fall.
4. Hyperbole; fatherly advice, "effective means by which God KEEPS us saved". Could not really happen.
5. Dispensation; applied to THEM back THEN, but does not really apply to us here today...
Upvote
0
cygnusx1
Jacob the twister.....
- Apr 12, 2004
- 56,208
- 3,104
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
men choose according to their PREFERENCES , if men had no preferences "choice" would be indifferent , and wouldn't be choice but passivity ; so men are either divided into ;
a) Men who choose Christ because they prefer good .
b) Men who choose sin because they prefer evil.
Christ said men prefer sin , to light , they actually love darkness rather than light (John 3:19)
If there are men created by God who love light rather than darkness then why are all men not created with this propensity ?
why the difference in creation ?
Truth is , either
1. Men are changed from a depraved nature by God ,
or
2. SOME Men are born with a depraved nature while others arn't.
so which is it ben ?
either way it isn't down to your decision to be born with or without a fallen nature ; a wicked disposition that is at war with God , or on the contrary to be born desiring the light and loving God , which btw , describes someone Regenerate !
if men have been born , some good , some bad , how is that anything to do with human choice ? Folks it isn't!!!
either way taking the anti-Calvinist view , or the Biblical view , it all comes down to God's Sovereignty.
a) Men who choose Christ because they prefer good .
b) Men who choose sin because they prefer evil.
Christ said men prefer sin , to light , they actually love darkness rather than light (John 3:19)
If there are men created by God who love light rather than darkness then why are all men not created with this propensity ?
why the difference in creation ?
Truth is , either
1. Men are changed from a depraved nature by God ,
or
2. SOME Men are born with a depraved nature while others arn't.
so which is it ben ?
either way it isn't down to your decision to be born with or without a fallen nature ; a wicked disposition that is at war with God , or on the contrary to be born desiring the light and loving God , which btw , describes someone Regenerate !
if men have been born , some good , some bad , how is that anything to do with human choice ? Folks it isn't!!!
either way taking the anti-Calvinist view , or the Biblical view , it all comes down to God's Sovereignty.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
cygnusx1
Jacob the twister.....
- Apr 12, 2004
- 56,208
- 3,104
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
well , here's an example of ben throwing out verses without quoting them , perhaps hoping that his reader will not takle the time to go and check these texts against what he is teaching , but , if we go and have a look to see if Ezek 36:26-27 which teaches a new heart preceeds obedience is overthrown by Ezek 11:18-21 as ben alleges , what do we discover ;
Ezekiel 11
[16] Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Although I have cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come.
[17] Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.
[18] And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence.
[19] And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
[20] That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
[21] But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.
Notice the order dear reader ;
It all begins with God not man ; v16 . Thus saith the Lord GOD; Although I have cast them far off ...... although I have scattered them.....among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come.
v.17 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people ,
v18 . And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence.
so here we have cause and effect , God casts them far off , then after a time God gathers them ; and they shall come (not might come) and they shall take away all the detestable things (not maybe they will) ....
now that the people have been chastised , brought back and made to "clean up their land" so to speak , next comes the operation on the heart ;
[19] And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
notice this act is unconditional and Sovereign , nowhere do we read that they must have faith or must be obedient otherwise they will not get this NEW-BIRTH , (which is denied all OT saints by dispies) , no , God initiates their new birth just as He intiated their return , Grace first then obedience .... every time !
even so ;
[20] That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Notice once again the order is God's grace first granting them a new-birth in order that they will keep God's statutes and ordinances , and do them !
"but what about this verse" I here someone cry ;
[21] But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.
doesn't this verse prove that a new heart follows obedience ?
No , it certainly does not , otherwise the previous verse makes no sense .
This verse underlines a Biblical doctrine of man's responsibility , even after a new heart is granted , the remains of the old sinful nature are still present , every Christian should know that there is still enough wickedness within our own hearts to condemn us night and day , if it were not for God's grace and mercy .
Verse 21 teaches that what a man sows he will reap , which principle is found also throughout the New Testament . Nowhere in this text , or any other do we find Regeneration- The New Birth following human faith or obedience , instead it is ALWAYS before.
and the Grace that saves us does not remove us from the cycle of sowing and reaping.
Upvote
0
nobdysfool
The original! Accept no substitutes!
- Feb 23, 2003
- 15,018
- 1,006
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Here comes the spin....
Ben said:
Whose action carries more weight? Why is it that you insist that man's action supercedes and trumps God's action? Before Moses even went to Egypt to bring the children of Israel out, God told him that HE (God) would harden Pharaoh's heart. Since God said it first, and because Pharaoh subsequently did just as God said he would, God gets the credit, and Pharaoh only did as he was ordained to do, by God. But Ben says "not really", Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and God had nothing to do with it. Anywhere you see God doing something, and man doing something, you can count on Ben to see man as the prime mover, the one whose choice is paramount, and as we've seen here, even though God declared that He would harden Pharaoh's heart, Ben gives all the credit to Pharaoh for "freely choosing" to harden his own heart, when, according to Ben, Pharaoh could have just as easily not done so, totally ignoring God's prior declaration of what He WILL do, not what he "might" do, or "was considering doing", 'if Pharaoh didn't do it on his own'.
Ben said:
Not Responsible Grace. Calvinism accommodates them perfectly. but, I don't expect you to see that, or admit to it. But the truth is, Calvinism has no problem with those verses (nor does Calvinism have problems with anything in scripture).
Ben said:
Uh-huh...and if your grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. Deny it, or not, you pull as many 5-ways, if not more so than you accuse Calvinists of doing.
Upvote
0
- Apr 5, 2003
- 6,713
- 469
- 47
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Apparently the only difference is in who is the one defending the verse.
I have yet to see you provide any explanation as to how God not only is mentioned FIRST as the person hardening Pharaoh's heart (in Exodus 4, not just in Exodus 10), but also clearly presents His hardening of Pharaoh's heart as His action unto a specified end, namely ensuring that Pharaoh will not obey the command of the LORD but rather will refuse to let the people go. I see no explanation as to how God declares before the events even take place that HE will harden Pharaoh's heart and states that it is for a desired outcome, yet it is only Pharaoh responsible for the hardening and not God Himself.
The truth is "Responsible Grace" has no explanation that can reconcile this truth with its doctrine. The only defense it can muster is to point to other supposed proofs to say it can't possibly mean what it clearly says.
As with the previous verse, the only accommodation "Responsible Grace" can make is to say Romans 3:10 can't possibly mean what it clearly says based on a flawed conclusion drawn from other verses and forced upon this one.
All of which have been soundly addressed. I will be happy to provide links.
The fallacy here is two-fold.
First, the assumption is that none of these are valid interpretive possibilities in principle; that is, none of these can be used to explain any Scripture at all. Thus we are to believe:
1. There is no verse in Scripture that presents someone that professes faith without possessing it (IOW, anyone who claims to be saved or outwardly acts as though they are saved must necessarily BE saved). Jesus' words about the Pharisees disprove this, as He presents them as "whited sepulchres" having the outward appearance of righteousness but devoid of faith in the inside.
2. There is no place in Scripture that presents someone that is saved and falls into some sort of temptation or difficulty but never loses their salvation. (IOW, true believers cannot have any sort of difficult time with sin). This is of course proven false by Romans 7 where Paul speaks of the believer's struggle against the flesh.
3. There is no place in Scripture that presents tares among the wheat; unsaved individuals among true believers who eventually manifest themselves as such by their apostasy. This is disproven by 1 John 2:19, which clearly presents unbelievers who appeared to be believers but eventually manifest the fact that they were not by their departure from the faithful.*
4. There is no place in Scripture that presents God as using rebukes, warnings, or any other such device as an instrumental means of preserving the faith of His people. This is disproven by 2 Chronicles 30:1-12 where God sends out the command through Hezekiah to repent and then by His hand brings about obedience and repentance among the men in Asher, Manasseh, Zebulun and Judah in response to His command.
5. There is no place in Scripture that presents scenarios or situations which are particular to the time of the writing of those Scriptures, and that any application of principles contained in particular time periods must apply in precisely like manner in the present. This of course is disproven in particular by the casuistic laws presented to the Israelites by Moses, as well as teachings in the New Testament concerning head coverings.
Second, the assumption that by simply associating any argument to one of these five predefined categories it automatically renders the argument refuted. This is nothing more than an association fallacy, and as pointed out above also presumes that those five interpretations cannot be applied to any Scripture in principle.
Thus, the "five-way" is nothing more than a red herring; a convoluted means of dismissing arguments without actually disproving them.
* Two things to note:
- "Responsible Grace" proponents have acknowledged that 1 John 2:19 does in fact present unbelievers appearing as believers but manifesting themselves as unbelievers by their apostasy, but the claim is made that this only applies to these "anti-Christs" mentioned in the passage and thus a) doesn't apply to believers today, and b) "does not set precedent" for this understanding to be used anywhere else in Scripture. IOW, they employ #5 to keep from losing #3.
- The very "sudden subject-change" principle cited as #3 is employed by "Responsible Grace" theology in 2 Peter 2 to advocate a change from "they/them" referring to false teachers in vv13-19 to "they/them" referring to true believers in vv20-22.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
