Not been around.Do you not believe that salvation is by grace through faith? And that, not of ourselves? So what is the problem? We believe the same thing, no?
Acts 15:18 says that God fulfills His word. Romans 11:33 points to God be unsearchable. Neither of these deals with God decreeing man's every action - which is what you and Calvin assert.
Your "Good for you, because I am not making any." is in response to my refusal to examine what Calvinist Charles Spurgeon has to say on 1 Peter 1:2. It is arrogant to demand others support an argument you know they disagree with.
28 Bible verses about Mockers
Ok, I got that wrong. Basically Calvinism relies on a lot of passages, like this one, to construct their determinism doctine like one puts together a jig-saw puzzle. And then once you establish, rightly or wrongly, that God is deterministic, what applications come along with that? And do those applications contradict scripture? That is a good litmus test.Ac 15:18 - Known to the Lord for ages is his work.
Where have I been dishonest or contradicted myself? I really would like to know.Not been around.
No Mark.
We don't believe the same thing.
You just can't be honest about what you believe so it's difficult to talk to you.
Acts 15:18 says that God fulfills His word. Romans 11:33 points to God be unsearchable. Neither of these deals with God decreeing man's every action - which is what you and Calvin assert.
Your "Good for you, because I am not making any." is in response to my refusal to examine what Calvinist Charles Spurgeon has to say on 1 Peter 1:2. It is arrogant to demand others support an argument you know they disagree with.
28 Bible verses about Mockers
I didn't say you contradicted yourself.Where have I been dishonest or contradicted myself? I really would like to know.
Then maybe you can describe what I believe, apart from the strawmen.You say I don't understand what you believe.
Frankly, and seriously, I think calvinists are being dishonest by saying that.
Mark,Yes, because even though some of the things you said, to you mean something beyond what you said, to me they don't, and as worded, I agree with it. Particularly the parts that directly quote, or repeat, what Scripture says. Calvinism, as I know it, nor Reformed Theology, contradicts any of it, unless I missed something of what you said, (not Scripture quoted, nor repeated) that was false.
What you meant by what you said is another matter. Just as a for-instance, you said, "Jesus paid the ransom for all mankind (1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 John 2:2) - that explains God's grace which is not of ourselves..." I have little doubt you meant something along the lines that that completely explains God's grace which is not of ourselves, and that there is nothing else to add, concerning God's grace to us, that is not of ourselves. But you didn't say so.
As for the other part you might misunderstand me to say, and maybe accuse me of inconsistency: The being that has taken up permanent residence in the Lake of Fire hardly resembles the person we thought we knew here on Earth. Jesus did not pay the penalty for every soul, only to have it paid again by that soul, upon their resurrection unto death. That soul is not mankind made in the image of God —at least, not as far as I can tell.
You probably don't remember me saying things to the effect that God's creation is: 1) a particular people (i.e. the Elect, the Dwelling Place of God), and 2) what it took for them to become the Dwelling Place of God (i.e. the rest of what we refer to by 'creation', to include the universe, and this whole long story).
Why did I answer as I did, instead of confronting what you meant? To show @GodsGrace101 that we do have a semblance of unity, those of us that are brothers and sisters in Christ.
How come you and Clare don't understand what posters mean?Here's some translations and exposition:
GodsGrace101 said:
"It doesn't mean what you believe it means." to which @Clare73 responded (#79), "Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate that assertion if it is to have any merit beyond personal opinion.." Here Clare is responding to God'sGrace101, and by "that assertion", she is referring to the claim that @GodsGrace101 had just made: that it doesn't mean what Clare believes it means. The rest of what Clare said is self-explanatory. Now what GodsGrace101 was referring to, I haven't researched; it's a shame how curt and unexpressive she was. Alas, if only she could have been more understandable and specific with her critique, this whole matter could have been avoided. But I hope this clears up your dismay and confusion.
GodsGrace101 said:
"I suggest you study it all on your very own. Nothing can convince you like your own brain." to which Clare said (#89): "Sounds a lot like you cannot Biblically demonstrate your assertion." I did a little research, and it turns out that Clare was talking to GodsGrace101 again, and not to you! No wonder you were confused! And true to form, she wrote a little more directly than apparently some of her opponents appreciate, in contrast with how GG101 had talked to her, as though GG was presenting a more reasonable suggestion than to explain herself, and as though Clare studying it on her own would naturally come to the same conclusion that GG had come to; thus no explanation on GG's part was necessary or to any purpose. I agree with you —Clare should never have accused GG of inability to demonstrate her assertion. She should have accused her of being lazy, or worse —wrong!
GodsGrace101 said:
To which Clare responded (#91): "Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of any error." After much puzzlement and conjecture, I researched a little further back to see what GG had swooned over, and it turns out that:
Clare73 said:
"She *(referring to herself in the 3rd person) is saying that divine foreknowledge (prognosis), as used in the NT, always refers to God knowing what he will do." Now, it goes without saying that the swoon was an altogether appropriate response in a debate forum, full of wit, reason and intellectual content, serving up a more convincing argument than mere denial. Yet, it seems Clare completely misunderstood GG's intent, and took GG's valid refutation *(the swoon) to fall short of a Biblical demonstration of the error in Clare's statement, that in the NT, 'foreknowledge' refers to God knowing what he will do.
John Mullally said:
"Those passages were translated into English by scholars who knew a lot more about the source language than you do. If the meaning of the source text was acctive like "decree" or something synonymous to it, those words would have been translated accordingly." which elicited the response from Clare (#214): "Then you get to Biblically demonstrate my error." To be clear, this response WAS addressed to you. But as you indicated, it is obviously confusing. Clare should have mentioned exactly what error she had made that you were refuting, to include in her statement what the Bible has to say about it, and admitted to the error without reservation, thus demonstrating the error herself —nothing else would make sense to you. I'm thinking instead that she had made an assertion, subsequently refusing to admit that your claim to veracity of the English Translation needed no explanation as to relevance and so, needed no further engagement.
John Mullally said:
"I understand that translators have to balance producing translations that are easily understandable against capturing every nuance that can be gleened from the original text. Nothing in Post 215 supports how you twisted scripture in Post 19. Foreknowledge, by its definition, does not imply causation." And so Clare retorted (#223): "Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit." Here I admit to a certain amount of puzzlement myself. Seeing so many things on your part asserted without Biblical backing, trying to figure out what she was referring to, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony, and can't make up my mind. Maybe it was what you said, that she denied by stating the opposite:
John Mullally said:
"Foreknowledge, by its definition, does not imply causation. But Clare said (#223): "Foreknowledge, by definition, does not exclude causation when it comes to God." Maybe that statement made her think of the fact she mentions (#223), that as Luther said to Erasmus: "Your view of God is too human.", where Luther intended something along the lines of Erasmus thinking God was like Erasmus.
John Mullally said:
"I don't think that BibleBeliever1611 understood what Clare was saying. I think it was a knee-jerk reaction. Clare frequently answers with a wall of scripture references, with only a cursory explanation. Which is something I don't think many people like as it is difficult to respond to directly without getting into a "guessing game", and that generally does not go well. And if you ask for clarification - you can expect to hear something like "What do you think it means" - which generally does not go well either." And Clare responded (#226): "You cannot Biblically refute her explanation", which I take to be referring to an explanation she herself (again, here, in the 3rd person) had given, since it doesn't make much sense that you would want to refute what GG had said. I'm assuming the explanation she is referring to was whatever cursory one you were speaking of, because she follows it with (also #226): "Object without any Biblical demonstration of error." Of course, it is possible that she is referring to something she had claimed in the past, without having been refuted —it would be hard to say, if one is in the habit of taking statements out of context, in order to not have to deal with the unassailable assertions made in context.
*note by MQ in parenthesis
PS. This has been a lot of fun. Let's do this again real soon!
That's OK ....Then maybe you can describe what I believe, apart from the strawmen.
Ummmm.John, thank you for your kindly response to my rather sarcastic post.
I did intend that you pick up on the fact that @Clare73 is not so hard to understand as you seemed to think. Also, I noticed, and I meant for you to notice, that you had not admonished @GodsGrace101 for doing the same thing you claimed Clare was doing. To be honest, Clare's directness is more polite than GG101's 'dismissal' non-answers, because although it may seem just as condescending, it does take the opponent seriously, which the 'dismissal' non-answer does not. (Just in case it is necessary for me to clue you in to what I am talking about, here is an obvious 'dismissal' —an uncaring 'flip of the hand', a "whatever" that young people lately use to dismiss someone or some subject they don't want to deal with— which is also a non-answer, I give you this sarcastic example: GodsGrace101 said: "I suggest you study it all on your very own. Nothing can convince you like your own brain."; this, given in lieu of answering Clare's question, or honoring her request.)
Sometimes when I expect a response back after my response, I will include certain details from past posts (say that 5 times real fast) just to make it easier for a reader to follow what is going on. That, however, is not requisite, and even you don't always do it. In looking into whatever you are talking about (other than where you actually quoted her) I had to search back into what you responded to, and often into what the person you were responding to, was responding to, etc etc. It is the nature of the format here on this site, and not simply indicative of any antagonism or disrespect of others on Clare's part. I am verbose, and "in many words there lacks not sin", er, uhm, "mistakes" —Clare is not. People often just phase me out, even if they are polite enough to not interrupt me with more immediate subject matter. I see their eyes glaze over when I am talking. But Clare— I commend Clare for her conciseness. She is not so hard to understand that it isn't worth looking into what she is talking about.
Granted that while a person may be forgiven for posting a few obscure, terse sentences, Clare may be in the habit of doing so more than GG101. I don't know as I haven't read as much of GG's posts as I have of Clare's. But if I am interested in what Clare is talking about, I haven't had any problem figuring out what she is saying.
Yes, I know that is what you see, sadly.Mark,
The only semblance of unity that we have is belief in Jesus.
HOW we get to that belief is different.
WHAT keeps us saved is different.
The very God that gifts us faith and salvation does not appear, to me, to be the same God.
You call it the doctrine of grace.
I see no grace in your doctrines.
I see that you follow the wrong JC....
You follow John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ.
Jesus did die for everyone and this is why:
Adam, as the federal head of all mankind caused all mankind to fall when he disobeyed God.
Jesus, as the firstborn of many, had to pay for all of mankind.
NOW, man has been bought back from satan.
Whether or not man desires to take advantage of this great gift of salvation is up to him.
God will NOT force anyone to love Him - Irresistible grace - because God desires a freely given love from us.
Not love given by some robot that God created.
OK.Where have I been dishonest or contradicted myself? I really would like to know.
I couldn't tell from your post here, which is the statement and which is the translation. But acknowledge, please, that we aren't the only ones who don't always get what the opposition is saying. The strawmen alone, that are attributed to us, are evidence of that.How come you and Clare don't understand what posters mean?
Could it be because you can't even admit to yourselves that what you believe might not be correct?
Is this your attempt to show where I have been inconsistent and/or dishonest? Or is this a side-track, since you say "and see where we agree and where we don't."? I'm willing to discuss TULIP, as long as we can dispense with the strawmen and antagonism and, hopefully, the divergences. But if you're going to do like most have done when talking to me in claiming dishonesty on my part or inconsistency by claiming that I say things I do not, paraphrasing what I say according to their notions of where what I say logically goes, I've done that enough.OK.
Let's start from the begining.
Let's do TULIP one letter at a time and see where we agree and where we don't.
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
By this do you understand that a person is depraved in every way in their living life.
Or do you understand this to mean that a person is so depraved that they cannot seek God on their own?
Will get to this.Yes, I know that is what you see, sadly.
Irresistible Grace is not "forcing", anymore than God forced us to be born the first time.
I don't know enough about the remonstrance.Is this your attempt to show where I have been inconsistent and/or dishonest? Or is this a side-track, since you say "and see where we agree and where we don't."? I'm willing to discuss TULIP, as long as we can dispense with the strawmen and antagonism and, hopefully, the divergences. But if you're going to do like most have done when talking to me in claiming dishonesty on my part or inconsistency by claiming that I say things I do not, paraphrasing what I say according to their notions of where what I say logically goes, I've done that enough.
Perhaps you can mount a defense of the Remonstrance's claims, in response to which TULIP was drawn up, and we can argue about that.
Do you wish to discuss or not?Is this your attempt to show where I have been inconsistent and/or dishonest? Or is this a side-track, since you say "and see where we agree and where we don't."? I'm willing to discuss TULIP, as long as we can dispense with the strawmen and antagonism and, hopefully, the divergences. But if you're going to do like most have done when talking to me in claiming dishonesty on my part or inconsistency by claiming that I say things I do not, paraphrasing what I say according to their notions of where what I say logically goes, I've done that enough.
Perhaps you can mount a defense of the Remonstrance's claims, in response to which TULIP was drawn up, and we can argue about that.
You haven't answered: Is this your means for you to show me to be dishonest and inconsistent? If so, do you mind when I call you out on the method of reinterpreting what I say to mean something that I didn't say nor imply by my words?Do you wish to discuss or not?
Here it is again:
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
By this do you understand that a person is depraved in every way in their living life.
Or do you understand this to mean that a person is so depraved that they cannot seek God on their own?
Yeah I’ve had this exact same discussion with her before. She claims that God chose everyone according to Him choosing everyone which is a circular statement that doesn’t make any sense. He chose us before creation according to those whom He would choose later. It’s a really baffling concept.Now you are just twisting the verse. It didn't say according to his decree, it said according to his foreknowledge. Elect according to his foreknowledge just means that God knew all along that Peter would be saved. That's totally different than God choosing him to be elect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?