Calvinists...supported by this or hurt?

[Chappie]

Rnmomof7:
BTW: Your catchism of sola scripture, has even been commendered by Satan himself. Doctrines of demons is now taught under the guise of sola scriptura.

This is why I believe that it is so important that we stay away from catchisms and denomonationalisms, my theology and your theology; they just provide convenient ways for Satan to infiltrate the body of Christ. Satan himself has a doctrine that he teaches under the guise of sola scriptura.

 

[orthotomeo]

Part of a letter sent from one "moderate" [meaning "inconsistent"] Calvinist to another. I don't agree with every point made; I draw attention mainly to the bold text. . .


Dear TrueBranch: I was given a copy of The Complete Green Letters some years ago by a pastor in FL. It didn't say much to me then. However, I successfully turned him into a Calvinist. That caused a split in that Independent Baptist Church.

I moved away and called down there recently to find out that this minister friend of mine divorced his wife and ran off with someone else deserting 3 children. When confronted he said it was God's "sovereign choice." He still pastors but obviously at a different location.

I am sick and tired of the legalism in Calvinism. I have come to realize that I have bought into a "system" rather than what the Bible teaches. I am unimpressed with the Puritans and their prolific writings. They were spiritual naval watchers by and large. Most of my friends in the PCA are leaning toward "high church" liturgy and are quite friendly with Episcopalianism and even Romanism. I have an article from a Catholic source "Sursom Corda" that lists over 50 Protestant ministers trained at Reformed Theological Seminary and Gordon Conwell who have defected to Romanism. At least Romanism is a more consistent place for one who is using legalistic means to secure their salvation. I am sure you have heard the story of Scott Hahn.


one more...


You know, I see a huge momentum toward Covenant/Reformed Theology today. The Law perspective is appealing to the natural man and fits in well with self improvement and other kinds of hype-oriented, works-based attainment theories -- no different than Dennis Waitly, Earl Nightingale, or Tony Robbins.

The Covenant people are extremely prolific in their writings (just look at Gurnall's 1200+ pages on the Armour of the Christian; Richard Baxter's 70+ volumes; John Owen's endless elaborations where he digresses almost in every paragraph to rhapsodize about our state as "worms, worthlessness," etc etc. This kind of writing chews up reams of paper and gallons of ink.

This is not surprising as law-orientation by nature is quite voluminous, since it spirals and diverges on endless elaborations regarding degrees of holiness or measures of goodness. The Talmud is a huge expansion of the Torah's 613 or so discrete commands. Law-prose can literally go on forever and this level of production tends to intimidate the believer.

Faith encourages an outward look and a heavenly perspective. Law [which Covenant theology exhumes as the Christian's standard of conduct] insists upon spiritual naval watching, constant measurement and pulse-taking; the search for goodness and power from within (which is impossible) and endless "to-do's," all of course "through the power of the Holy Spirit"* -- the typical tack-on slogan to avoid the kind of conclusion that readers might draw, which is the dreaded leaven of the Pharisees: legalism.

Paul said he knew nothing except Christ and Him crucified. He could have quoted from his own considerable storehouse of knowledge, his own Puritanical John Owen's or Thomas Goodwins if you will, in the form of the Rabbinical teachings. But he counted those perspectives as worthless and a distraction to the illustrious work of Christ. He wrote 14 succinct letters in themes of doctrine, instruction; reproof of practical failure, correction of error.

Paul's kind of writing is what is in demand in the business world and for those in highest level of responsibility. It is consistent with our calling as eventual rulers in the next age. Mountains of detail and elaboration are quickly dismissed by executives as worthless speculation. The correspondence that leads to action and production is what drives the business world and the Bible message to the servant-king believers is no different.

It appears that Reformed theologians are increasing and the great light of dispensational teaching from the mid 1800's to the late 1900's is about to go out. After Ryrie and Walvoord, then who? MackIntosh, McClain, Kelly are out of print. Chafer [a Calvinist!] is slandered as an antinomian even though his scholarship and insights are [almost] impeccable. Scofield is branded a heretic while loud-mouthed legalists like Gentry, Rushdoony, DeMar and Sproul flood the channels with their spiritual cyanide, which is the message of works wrapped in irrationalism and antinomies ("you are saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone;" "Works are not meritorious but they are essential;" "You are completely dead in sin and a spiritual corpse, but you must pray (that is, perform an operational act as a 'lively' corpse) to receive the new birth;" "You have only a new nature that loves God, but sinning comes from a beachhead/remnant/ flesh/humanness/members kind of source that was fully eradicated but not quite...." "Biblical Law is the road to holiness (regardless of the testimony and demonstration of Israel's failure)." All of these incomprehensible theories are distributed in a scholastic presentation format to unwitting people who gorge on spiritual husks and pods, fill their bellies, then die of spiritual malnutrition. Heavy weight but no nutrition.

* Catholics say the very same thing; they're honest enough to admit they're trying to keep the Law in order to BE saved. Reformed folks say they're doing it only as evidence they ARE saved. Paint it whatever color you like but either way, it's salvation by Law (works).

 

[frumanchu]

I moved away and called down there recently to find out that this minister friend of mine divorced his wife and ran off with someone else deserting 3 children. When confronted he said it was God's "sovereign choice." He still pastors but obviously at a different location.

I am sick and tired of the legalism in Calvinism. I have come to realize that I have bought into a "system" rather than what the Bible teaches.

Stop right there. If this guy said he divorced, ran off with someone else, and deserted three children, he can hardly be seen as a legalist. Quite the contrary, his actions were abundantly antinomian. To decry Calvinism as legalistic after associating it with a person who displays blatant antinomianism is rather rediculous.

Most of my friends in the PCA are leaning toward "high church" liturgy and are quite friendly with Episcopalianism and even Romanism. I have an article from a Catholic source "Sursom Corda" that lists over 50 Protestant ministers trained at Reformed Theological Seminary and Gordon Conwell who have defected to Romanism. At least Romanism is a more consistent place for one who is using legalistic means to secure their salvation. I am sure you have heard the story of Scott Hahn.

Logical fallacy. Guilt by association.

Faith encourages an outward look and a heavenly perspective. Law [which Covenant theology exhumes as the Christian's standard of conduct] insists upon spiritual naval watching, constant measurement and pulse-taking; the search for goodness and power from within (which is impossible) and endless "to-do's" -- all of course through the power of the Holy Spirit -- the typical tack-on slogan to avoid the kind of conclusion that readers might draw, which is the dreaded leaven of the Pharisees -- legalism.

Logical fallacy. False dilemma: choice between faith and law. The two are diametrically opposed only in terms of our justification, not in terms of our Christian conduct. He who has faith in God seeks to please God. How do we please God if we do not know what pleases Him (namely, His law). Covenant theology does indeed point to the Law of God as the Christian's standard of conduct. The Reformed believer doesn't seek to keep the Law of God to his utmost ability because he thinks it will save him...he does so because he knows that is what is pleasing to God. If we love Him, we will keep His commandments.

Paul said he knew nothing except Christ and Him crucified. He could have quoted from his own considerable storehouse of knowledge, his own Puritanical John Owen's or Thomas Goodwins if you will, in the form of the Rabbinical teachings. But he counted those perspectives as worthless and a distraction to the illustrious work of Christ. He wrote 14 succinct letters in themes of doctrine, instruction; reproof of practical failure, correction of error.

The author needs to pay better attention to those letters and to the words of Christ Himself. Shall we go on sinning (transgressing the Law of God) that grace may abound?

It appears that Reformed theologians are increasing and the great light of dispensational teaching from the mid 1800's to the late 1900's is about to go out.

I knew dispensationalism would rear its head eventually.

After Ryrie and Walvoord, then who? MackIntosh, McClain, Kelly are out of print. Chafer [a Calvinist!] is slandered as an antinomian even though his scholarship and insights are [almost] impeccable. Scofield is branded a heretic while loud-mouthed legalists like Gentry, Rushdoony, DeMar and Sproul flood the channels with their spiritual cyanide, which is the message of works wrapped in irrationalism and antinomies ("you are saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone;"

Check your history books...the ones that deal with church history BEFORE dispensationalism. You'll see that this is by no means a new message. Apostle Paul: saved by faith alone. James: such faith is never alone.

Being well familiar with Sproul's work in particular, I have to wonder if this guy has even read or listened to him.

"Works are not meritorious but they are essential;"

So, if the mark or outward manifestation of saving faith is not works, then please tell me what it is?

"You are completely dead in sin and a spiritual corpse, but you must pray (that is, perform an operational act as a 'lively' corpse) to receive the new birth;"

WHAT?!? Is he SERIOUS? The Reformed position is that one must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before one can even seek after God. This guy can't even accurately represent the theology he's trying to discount.

"You have only a new nature that loves God, but sinning comes from a beachhead/remnant/ flesh/humanness/members kind of source that was fully eradicated but not quite...."

Again, gross distortion of the Reformed position.

"Biblical Law is the road to holiness (regardless of the testimony and demonstration of Israel's failure)."

Israel's failure was in relying on their performance to save them instead of keeping the Law in faith.

All of these incomprehensible theories are distributed in a scholastic presentation format to unwitting people who gorge on spiritual husks and pods, fill their bellies, then die of spiritual malnutrition. Heavy weight but no nutrition.

Yes, men like David. "Oh how I love your Law."

This entire excerpt REEKS of antinomianism and is riddled with misrepresentation. To say that this guys is an "inconsistent" Calvinist is to make an incredible understatement.

 

[orthotomeo]

To decry Calvinism as legalistic after associating it with a person who displays blatant antinomianism is rather rediculous.

I know. I left it in to ask this question: Unless that adulterous pastor repents, he'll die in sin, which would prove he was never elect even though he is a Calvinist. Would you say that is so?

Most of my friends in the PCA are leaning toward "high church" liturgy and are quite friendly with Episcopalianism and even Romanism. I have an article from a Catholic source "Sursom Corda" that lists over 50 Protestant ministers trained at Reformed Theological Seminary and Gordon Conwell who have defected to Romanism. At least Romanism is a more consistent place for one who is using legalistic means to secure their salvation. I am sure you have heard the story of Scott Hahn.

Fru: Logical fallacy. Guilt by association.

Not really. It is a fact: dozens of formerly strong Calvinists have, over the years, gone to Rome. That would require the renouncing of pretty much everything they used to believe, at least as far as the specifics of Reformed theology is concerned. That means they renounced Calvinism.

My point, then, is the same as with the adulterous pastor:

How could the elect (in this case, well-informed Reformed ministers) renounce Calvinism after YEARS of study and preaching it, and believing they were among God's select few?

Oh, right...there's no way to know you ARE one of that select few. So maybe the stress of believing by "faith alone" they'll be saved in the end got to be too much for some? So instead of chucking Covenant-think entirely they did the next best thing and went to Rome, which is also Covenant-oriented? So now, with a clean (tho seared) conscience, they can rely on their own works to get them to Heaven - which, in a roundabout way, they were doing the whole time?

I admit I'm speculating here, but such behavior is logically consistent within its own framework. I'm just surprised MORE Reformed folks haven't thrown in the towel and gone home to Rome.

Faith encourages an outward look and a heavenly perspective. Law [which Covenant theology exhumes as the Christian's standard of conduct] insists upon spiritual naval watching, constant measurement and pulse-taking; the search for goodness and power from within (which is impossible) and endless "to-do's" -- all of course through the power of the Holy Spirit -- the typical tack-on slogan to avoid the kind of conclusion that readers might draw, which is the dreaded leaven of the Pharisees -- legalism.

Fru: Logical fallacy. False dilemma: choice between faith and law. The two are diametrically opposed only in terms of our justification, not in terms of our Christian conduct.

Wrong. Paul says the Law is for the unrighteous, not the righteous. Christians are dead to the Law the means of justification AND as the means of sanctification.

You Calvinists are so fond of saying "dead" means DEAD. Inert. Lifeless. Unresponsive. Incapable. Unable. Well, we're DEAD to the Law "in Christ."

But your Augustinian theology exhumed the Law and propped it up as the standard of Christian conduct. That's the reason so many of your camp are self-righteous finger-pointing legalists; defeated, joyless, frightened spiritual cripples, or Calvinists on posting boards who deny being either.

LAW means WORK. No one who has the Law hanging over his or her head, for ANY reason, is able to truly, finally REST in the finished work of Christ. I know, I used to be there.

Fru: He who has faith in God seeks to please God. How do we please God if we do not know what pleases Him (namely, His law).

Ummm...walking in His Spirit? Keeping one's focus on Christ instead of on oneself? Reckoning ourselves to be what God says we are: dead to sin? Just a thought Paul had.

Fru: The Reformed believer doesn't seek to keep the Law of God to his utmost ability because he thinks it will save him...

Not entirely true.

...he does so because he knows that is what is pleasing to God.

If you want to please God, put the Law back in its coffin and walk in the Spirit as a member of Christ's Body; He'll take care of the rest. The Law isn't for you anymore...you insult Him when you try to keep it.

If we love Him, we will keep His commandments.

But Christ gave a NEW body of truth through Paul - it's called the revelation of the mystery.

Paul said he knew nothing except Christ and Him crucified. He could have quoted from his own considerable storehouse of knowledge, his own Puritanical John Owen's or Thomas Goodwins if you will, in the form of the Rabbinical teachings. But he counted those perspectives as worthless and a distraction to the illustrious work of Christ. He wrote 14 succinct letters in themes of doctrine, instruction; reproof of practical failure, correction of error.

Fru: The author needs to pay better attention to those letters and to the words of Christ Himself. Shall we go on sinning (transgressing the Law of God) that grace may abound?

Logical fallacy: straw man. The writer of the letter did not state, nor did he imply (nor, I suspect, does he believe) that Christians should go on sinning simply because we're under grace and completely forgiven all sin. That seems to be your implication.

In any case, the Law is not our standard. Christ is, "according to the revelation of the mystery" (Rom 16:25).

That reminds me...which aspect of Christ do you recommend we follow: Christ "according to the flesh" (2 Cor 5:16) or Christ "according to the revelation of the secret"? They're not the same - which do you choose?

It appears that Reformed theologians are increasing and the great light of dispensational teaching from the mid 1800's to the late 1900's is about to go out.

[bold]Fru: I knew dispensationalism would rear its head eventually.[/bold]

Like there's a biblical alternative? Besides, God invented dispensationalism (1 Cor 9:17; Eph 3:2).

Fru: Check your history books...the ones that deal with church history BEFORE dispensationalism.

As has been pointed out, dispensationalism not only preceeds them all but is supported by the best authority an idea can have: God thought of it.

Fru: You'll see that this is by no means a new message. Apostle Paul: saved by faith alone. James: such faith is never alone.

Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles. James was wrote to the circumcision. Two different (but related) audeinces. Two different (but related) Gospels. Two different (but related) apostles. Two different (but related) aspects of Christ. Best to keep them separate!

Fru: Being well familiar with Sproul's work in particular, I have to wonder if this guy has even read or listened to him.

I have. What exactly do you disagree with?

"Works are not meritorious but they are essential;"

Fru: So, if the mark or outward manifestation of saving faith is not works, then please tell me what it is?

There isn't any under grace. Paul urged good works after salvation -- amen! -- but not as EVIDENCE of salvation. Jesus did during His earthly ministry, UNDER LAW. But He rescinded that during His heavenly ministry through Paul, the dispensation of grace.

Look at what all went on in the Corinthian church...it's more a case of what WASN'T going on. If we sent you back in time to Corinth, I have ZERO doubt you'd write off most of them as religious reprobates. YET PAUL NEVER DID -- not even the guy who was doing his MOM.

Also, bear in mind that good works/fruit can be FAKED. We cannot tell the difference -- in order to know if the fruit is genuine you'd first have to know if the HEART is genuine. We can't know that, except for ourselves. Such is the nature of salvation by GRACE through FAITH, WITHOUT works.

"You are completely dead in sin and a spiritual corpse, but you must pray (that is, perform an operational act as a 'lively' corpse) to receive the new birth;"

Fru: WHAT?!? Is he SERIOUS? The Reformed position is that one must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before one can even seek after God. This guy can't even accurately represent the theology he's trying to discount.

Yeah, he blew it on that one. But I left it in just to see if you'd try to correct it, and you did. I wanted you'd show your readers, in your own words, just how ANTI-BIBLICAL the Reformed view of salvation is.

The Bible says salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. One isn't regenerated until he/she believes the Gospel. I have no doubt you think you believe that.

But what you actually believe is that salvation is by grace through election, with faith as a result of regeneration.

Faith cannot be both the means/conduit of regeneration AND the result of regeneration. It's one or the other. Hence we have here TWO DIFFERENT Gospels, which means one of them is false. The readers can decide which.

"You have only a new nature that loves God, but sinning comes from a beachhead/remnant/ flesh/humanness/members kind of source that was fully eradicated but not quite...."

Fru: Again, gross distortion of the Reformed position.

Come on, now...you know you still covet and lust and grieve the Spirit, even tho your sin nature is "gone." But that monkey is on your back, not mine.

"Biblical Law is the road to holiness (regardless of the testimony and demonstration of Israel's failure)."

Fru: Israel's failure was in relying on their performance to save them instead of keeping the Law in faith.

So Calvinists are able to PERFECTLY keep the Law "in faith" whereas the Jews couldn't? Calvinists can keep the Law perfectly, without stumbling at EVEN ONE POINT? Calvinists can do what no one else has been able to do? Forgive me for disbelieving that.

All of these incomprehensible theories are distributed in a scholastic presentation format to unwitting people who gorge on spiritual husks and pods, fill their bellies, then die of spiritual malnutrition. Heavy weight but no nutrition.

Fru:Yes, men like David. "Oh how I love your Law."

Dave was a covenant Jew under the Law. You're not.

Fru: This entire excerpt REEKS of antinomianism and is riddled with misrepresentation.

Yeah, okay. Better luck next time identifying and refuting them misrepresentations, you 'defender of Reformed theology,' you.

BTW - "antinomian" simply means "without law." That's what the dispensation of Grace is all about.

To say that this guys is an "inconsistent" Calvinist is to make an incredible understatement.

You're right. I shouldn't have singled him out. All Calvinists are inconsistent.

o.

 

[rnmomof7]

I know. I left it in to ask this question: Unless that adulterous pastor repents, he'll die in sin, which would prove he was never elect even though he is a Calvinist. Would you say that is so?

I do not know if Fue would agree with me but

No one goes to hell because of their sin.
Heaven will be full of sinners saved by Christ.
It is the covering of Christ that allows us into heaven
Anyone not covered by Christ will not be there.

Knowing the doctrine of Calvinism does not save you.

There are probably a lot of "intellectual Calvinists" that are not elect.
Knowing the doctrine proves nothing .

On that Pastor, his sin is an abomination to God , but if he was saved , that, like all sin is covered by the blood of Christ.
IMO a failure to repent might well indicate that the man was never saved,but none of us know what happens in the moments of death.
The Bible says God gives us repentance ..so if God grants him to repent he will

Sorry to but in , this has been an interesting conversation

 

[Beoga]

as anyone looked up acts 13:48 yet?

 

[frumanchu]

I know. I left it in to ask this question: Unless that adulterous pastor repents, he'll die in sin, which would prove he was never elect even though he is a Calvinist. Would you say that is so?

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."

Not really. It is a fact: dozens of formerly strong Calvinists have, over the years, gone to Rome. That would require the renouncing of pretty much everything they used to believe, at least as far as the specifics of Reformed theology is concerned. That means they renounced Calvinism.

Oh, well if it's dozens then that's different now isn't it.

I don't suppose it matters that dozens of Romans, Arminians and Wesleyans have, over the years, gone to Geneva. That would require the renouncing of pretty much everything they used to believe, at least as far as the specifics of Wesleyan/Roman/Arminian theology is concerned.

My point, then, is the same as with the adulterous pastor:

How could the elect (in this case, well-informed Reformed ministers) renounce Calvinism after YEARS of study and preaching it, and believing they were among God's select few?

Since when does our salvation rely on whether or not we're a Calvinist? If you really want to know why they did, ask them. There's no point asking me as I a) don't know them or their situation, and b) do not have personal experience with that scenario.

Oh, right...there's no way to know you ARE one of that select few. So maybe the stress of believing by "faith alone" they'll be saved in the end got to be too much for some? So instead of chucking Covenant-think entirely they did the next best thing and

went to Rome, which is also Covenant-oriented? So now, with a clean (tho seared) conscience, they can rely on their own works to get them to Heaven - which, in a roundabout way, they were doing the whole time? I admit I'm speculating here, but such behavior is logically consistent within its own framework. I'm just surprised MORE Reformed folks haven't thrown in the towel and gone home to Rome.

You're more than speculating, o. By the way, I do find it curious that you use "Calvinism," "Reformed Theology" and "Covenant Theology" interchangeably. I happen to know personally at least two Dispensational Calvinists (well, one's actually Amyrauldan).

Wrong. Paul says the Law is for the unrighteous, not the righteous. Christians are dead to the Law the means of justification AND as the means of sanctification.

So, let me get this straight. What purpose does the Law of God serve to the Christian? I agree we have no covenantal obligation to keep the Law. We are redeemed from the curse of the Law. But are you saying we have no moral obligation to keep the Law of God?

You Calvinists are so fond of saying "dead" means DEAD. Inert. Lifeless. Unresponsive. Incapable. Unable. Well, we're DEAD to the Law "in Christ."

But your Augustinian theology exhumed the Law and propped it up as the standard of Christian conduct. That's the reason so many of your camp are self-righteous finger-pointing legalists; defeated, joyless, frightened spiritual cripples, or Calvinists on posting boards who deny being either.

LOL! Well, isn't that nice. Either I'm a self-righteous finger-pointing legalist, or I'm a defeated, joyless and frightened spiritual cripple. Either way, denying it does no good because you're on to me.

Couldn't possibly be that I'm more than a conqueror, full of joy in the Lord, bold in the Spirit, healed, cleansed daily, seeking humility and seeking after the Law of God because I wish to please Him who purchased me. Nah...

LAW means WORK. No one who has the Law hanging over his or her head, for ANY reason, is able to truly, finally REST in the finished work of Christ. I know, I used to be there.

The Law is not the Sword of Damocles hanging over my head. Christ became the curse for me. I don't trust in my keeping of the Law to save me. I don't seek to keep His Law because I think it will save me...I seek to keep it because it's the right thing to do. Because I love the Lord.

It sure sounds to me like you couldn't deal with your conscience and the Law convicting you of some things in your life, and instead of working to fix them you chose to embrace antinomianism and the notion that you don't NEED to do anything righteous because Christ already did it all, so you can just sit back and and reap the benefits of Calvary. But I'm just speculating here

Ummm...walking in His Spirit? Keeping one's focus on Christ instead of on oneself? Reckoning ourselves to be what God says we are: dead to sin? Just a thought Paul had.

So tell me...what happens if "His Spirit" leads you to do something that contradicts the Law?

Why did Paul say we were dead to sin? Because the wages of sin is death. Through Christ's atoning sacrifice and our union through baptism with his death and burial, we have become "dead to sin" and are no longer under its curse. That does NOT mean that we can simply discard it as being inconsequential.

If you want to please God, put the Law back in its coffin and walk in the Spirit as a member of Christ's Body; He'll take care of the rest. The Law isn't for you anymore...you insult Him when you try to keep it.

YOU insult Him when you tell Him that the standard of His character and His righteousness are no longer to be sought after and we can just do whatever we wish. We aren't saved because we try to keep the Law...we try to keep the Law because we're saved.

But Christ gave a NEW body of truth through Paul - it's called the revelation of the mystery.

Do tell me, o. What was the mystery? Was the mystery that since we are now graciously saved by the blood of Christ that we are free to do that which God previously said He ABHORS?

Does our Christian liberty leave us free to sin?

Logical fallacy: straw man. The writer of the letter did not state, nor did he imply (nor, I suspect, does he believe) that Christians should go on sinning simply because we're under grace and completely forgiven all sin. That seems to be your implication.

In any case, the Law is not our standard. Christ is, "according to the revelation of the mystery" (Rom 16:25).

Tell me something, please. What was CHRIST'S standard? Was the Law just something God made up because He needed some substance by which to judge the blessings and sanctions of the covenant?

That reminds me...which aspect of Christ do you recommend we follow: Christ "according to the flesh" (2 Cor 5:16) or Christ "according to the revelation of the secret"? They're not the same - which do you choose?

You're going to have to explain that question a little better.

Like there's a biblical alternative?

Besides, God invented dispensationalism (1 Cor 9:17; Eph 3:2). As has been pointed out, dispensationalism not only preceeds them all but is supported by the best authority an idea can have: God thought of it.

Yup...and waited to let us all in on it until the 19th century. Too bad for the rest of the Christian faith...the joke's on them, huh?

Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles. James was wrote to the circumcision. Two different (but related) audeinces. Two different (but related) Gospels. Two different (but related) apostles. Two different (but related) aspects of Christ. Best to keep them separate!

Wow. You avoided using the word 'dispensation.' Good for you.

Tell me..how much of your Bible do you skip over on a regular basis because it doesn't apply directly to you?

I have. What exactly do you disagree with?

Within the last month alone I've listened to several of Sproul's messages specifically in relation to the Law of God as it pertains to the Christian. With the exception of the "we are saved by faith alone, but such faith is never alone" comment, none of them represent Sproul at all.

There isn't any under grace. Paul urged good works after salvation -- amen! -- but not as EVIDENCE of salvation. Jesus did during His earthly ministry, UNDER LAW. But He rescinded that during His heavenly ministry through Paul, the dispensation of grace.

So what in your estimation IS evidence of salvation?

Look at what all went on in the Corinthian church...it's more a case of what WASN'T going on. If we sent you back in time to Corinth, I have ZERO doubt you'd write off most of them as religious reprobates. YET PAUL NEVER DID -- not even the guy who was doing his MOM.

Well, thank you, o, for that kind sentiment.

Also, bear in mind that good works/fruit can be FAKED. We cannot tell the difference -- in order to know if the fruit is genuine you'd first have to know if the HEART is genuine. We can't know that, except for ourselves. Such is the nature of salvation by GRACE through FAITH, WITHOUT works.

What's the point, o? I have no disagreement with the notion that works can be "faked" or that one who appears outwardly righteous may inwardly be unregenerate. What's your point?

Yeah, he blew it on that one. But I left it in just to see if you'd try to correct it, and you did. I wanted you'd show your readers, in your own words, just how ANTI-BIBLICAL the Reformed view of salvation is.

Curses...foiled again! So far you've given them a glimpse of what the Reformed view is, but I'd hardly say you've shown it to be anti-Biblical (except in your own mind).

The Bible says salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. One isn't regenerated until he/she believes the Gospel. I have no doubt you think you believe that.

Please provide me with the chapter and verse which says "one isn't regenerated until he/she believes the Gospel." I have no doubt you think you have one.

But what you actually believe is that salvation is by grace through election, with faith as a result of regeneration.

Mmm-hmm. Shall we discuss the matter of causality, o, or will you persist in making more rediculous claims about what I actually believe?

Faith cannot be both the means/conduit of regeneration AND the result of regeneration. It's one or the other. Hence we have here TWO DIFFERENT Gospels, which means one of them is false. The readers can decide which.

Straw man. Calvinists don't believe that faith is both the means of regeneration and the conduit of it. You operate from a presumption that is in question, namely that regeneration follows faith. If that is not true, then our position that regeneration precedes faith does not leave us in self-contradiction.

Weigh your words carefully, o, before you stand here and accuse me of preaching a false gospel.

Come on, now...you know you still covet and lust and grieve the Spirit, even tho your sin nature is "gone." But that monkey is on your back, not mine.

I'm sorry...remind me again where I said my sin nature is gone.

So Calvinists are able to PERFECTLY keep the Law "in faith" whereas the Jews couldn't? Calvinists can keep the Law perfectly, without stumbling at EVEN ONE POINT? Calvinists can do what no one else has been able to do? Forgive me for disbelieving that.

Umm..never said we could.

Yeah, okay. Better luck next time identifying and refuting them misrepresentations, you 'defender of Reformed theology,' you.

It's people like you that keep the apologists of the world busy. People like you lead to councils.

BTW - "antinomian" simply means "without law." That's what the dispensation of Grace is all about.

Actually, from a theological standpoint it means AGAINST the Law, which very aptly describes you. But thank you for going on record as being antinomian. At least I need not draw it out of you.

You're right. I shouldn't have singled him out. All Calvinists are inconsistent.

Sing with me now...

o/~ Redeemed from the Law...
Oh blessed condition...
I can sin all I want....
And still have remission! o/~

 

[orthotomeo]

Littleapologist wrote:

as anyone looked up acts 13:48 yet?

Yep. I'm glad you brought it up.

1) The word for "appointed" (KJV, "ordained") is the same Greek word used in 1 Cor 16:15 for "devoted themselves" (KJV, "addicted themselves"). Those Gentiles who heard Paul's gospel, and were inclined to believe it, did and were saved. Those who weren't so inclined didn't, and were not saved.

Neither passage says God did the "appointing" or "ordaining" in the sense of election in eternity past. You have to WANT to see that there in order to see it there.

2) Just two verses before this one, Paul clearly says the Jews who rejected his words judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life (v. 46). That's justice - they willingly rejected the Word of God, so their judgment was on their own heads.

Could God justly condemn these Jews (or any unbeliever) for rejecting His Word if He made them reject it? No; such thinking makes God a liar and a hypocrite. But that's Calvinism for you.

o.

 

[rnmomof7]

Littleapologist wrote:



Yep. I'm glad you brought it up.

1) The word for "appointed" (KJV, "ordained") is the same Greek word used in 1 Cor 16:15 for "devoted themselves" (KJV, "addicted themselves"). Those Gentiles who heard Paul's gospel, and were inclined to believe it, did and were saved. Those who weren't so inclined didn't, and were not saved.

I do not think you will find a greek scholar that will agree with you on that .
Your reading is as many as devoted themselves believed.
How can one devote themselves to something they do not believe .But your reading has then believing because they were devoted..no sense there .


Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
[/quote]



Neither passage says God did the "appointing" or "ordaining" in the sense of election in eternity past. You have to WANT to see that there in order to see it there.

2) Just two verses before this one, Paul clearly says the Jews who rejected his words judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life (v. 46). That's justice - they willingly rejected the Word of God, so their judgment was on their own heads. [/quote]

And???? The non elect will always choose to reject the word of God.No one will be in Hell that does not deserve to be there

Could God justly condemn these Jews (or any unbeliever) for rejecting His Word if He made them reject it? No; such thinking makes God a liar and a hypocrite. But that's Calvinism for you.

o.

Did God put the tree in the garden when He knew they would eat it ?

Was that "fair"



Did God harden the Pharoes heart until He slaughtered the infants ? Was that "fair"?

God takes nothing away from the non elect. They come into this world just as the elect do. God allows them to make choices just as He does us.
He allows them to freely choose what they will without His grace. Their free will is fully intact they will always choose what they prefer.

God adds to the elect His grace , that opens eyes and ears and changes hearts. He reconfigures our will so that we prefer Him to anything else.


If it would be that any man would choose God without the effect of his grace He would save Him .

 

[Chappie]

And???? The non elect will always choose to reject the word of God. No one will be in Hell that does not deserve to be there.

To no one in particular:

I feel that it is ok for me to speak my conscience here because nobody cares what I think anyway. And if nobody cares what I think, then nobody should be offended by comments.... Knowing that no one cares, still I will speak the truth from my heart.

I am always angered and offended without exception when I see remarks such as the ones above. I have heard them stated a thousand times, and I remain just as offended each time as the first time I heard them..

Why am I so offended? It is because the very ones that love to speak these words deserve hell just as much as the ones that they are so quick to place under judgment. There is never any indication of empathy or even sorrow. Just, I’m on my way to heaven; they deserve to go to hell. There is something wrong in the hearts of men that believe that the demise of fellow human beings glorify God.

I thank the God of Heaven and earth, that comments like these are not a part of my praise, not a part of my worship. God commands that I love without judging, yet these are the sentiments of hearts that are supposedly the result of the regenerating love of God. Their praise rests squarely upon the shoulders of the torture of fellow human beings. I am sickened by the thought that this is the attitude that God wants to see in those that love him.

I mean no offense to any man, but as long as there is breath in my body, when I see these comments, I will do my very best to shine the light of shame upon them that they so richly deserve.

Paul stated something to the effect that he would gladly accept estrangement from God if it meant salvation for his brothers. Paul was a Jew, when he saw his brother’s estrangement from God, it caused him grief. These poor, strange electionists, they want to glorify God for it.

Thank you Father that you have either shielded me, or blinded me from this mentality. I praise you for a heart that wants to weep over the demise of my fellow human beings. Thank you Father for a heart that will pray unanswered prayers on their behalf for the rest of my life. I believe that if God will allow a wretched sinner like me into his kingdom, I will not in this life accept as fact that anyone like me deserves anything less than me.

Even if those dreadful words were true, in memory of the wretch that I am, I would shudder to utter those words.

I have poured out my heart to all that will read my comments. I do so knowing that some selfish, uncaring person will pick them apart just for the sake of it. Whither you believe me or not, I don't care. Whither you believe me or not, I just do not care, still I thank God that I am seldom if ever prompted to utter those dreadful words. The only way that I could ever glorify God in their demise, would be if I could glorify him for my own.

They were born, just like me. They had a mother and a Father, just like me. They struggled to survive in this life, just like me. They had brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews, just like me. Some folks loved them, and some disliked them, just like me. When their Children were sick or in danger, they cried and worried, just like me. They felt hunger, pain and joy, just like me, and when they die, someone will morn their passing, just like me.

Oh! how I despise those nasty little words. Some will say, Chappie's too emotional to be able to discuss scripture. At the moment, Chappie's upset. At the moment, Chappie don't need to intellectualize the scriptures. Chappie wants you to know what the scriptures have written in Chappies heart. Chappie is incapable of glorifying the demise of his fellow human beings while he basks in the hope that God showed him grace that ends all his sufferings, but he just as easily poured out his wrath on beings that were no more worthy of it than I am. And now their sufferings are just beginning...

Forgive me my brothers and sisters. There may be some among us upon whom the wrath of God must be poured out because we did not come to his grace. But it should not be the substance of glorifying God...

For those that are lost. For those that would glorify God for saving their on behinds, while burning everyone else.

 

[frumanchu]

Yep. I'm glad you brought it up.

1) The word for "appointed" (KJV, "ordained") is the same Greek word used in 1 Cor 16:15 for "devoted themselves" (KJV, "addicted themselves"). Those Gentiles who heard Paul's gospel, and were inclined to believe it, did and were saved. Those who weren't so inclined didn't, and were not saved.

Neither passage says God did the "appointing" or "ordaining" in the sense of election in eternity past. You have to WANT to see that there in order to see it there.

Not so fast. In Acts 13:48, the subjects are the recipients of the action. They did not ordain/appoint themselves. The verb itself may be the same as in 1 Cor 16:15, but the grammar is completely different. As many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Appointment preceded belief.

2) Just two verses before this one, Paul clearly says the Jews who rejected his words judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life (v. 46). That's justice - they willingly rejected the Word of God, so their judgment was on their own heads.

That they "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life" is a figure of speech, not a literal truth with respect to their salvation. It is Christ who ultimately is the judge, not they themselves.

Were men actually the judge of themselves, who would be condemned?

Do you not judge yourself unworthy of eternal life? I certainly do. Were I to judge myself otherwise I would do violence to any notion of grace on God's part in my salvation. I have judged myself unworthy of eternal life in ACCEPTING the Word of God whereas they have 'judged themselves unworthy of eternal life' in rejecting the Word of God.

The Geneva Bible has the following note regarding Acts 13:46: "By this your doing you pronounce as it were sentence upon yourselves, and judge yourselves."


Matthew Henry explores it further: "If men put the gospel from them, God justly takes it from them; why should manna be given to those that loathe it and call it light bread, or the privileges of the gospel forced on those that put them away, and say, We have no part in David? Herein they judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life. In one sense we must all judge ourselves unworthy of everlasting life, for there is nothing in us, nor done by us, by which we can pretend to merit it, and we must be made sensible of this; but here the meaning is, "You discover, or make it to appear, that you are not meet for eternal life; you throw away all your claims and give up your pretensions to it;since you will not take it from his hands, into whose hand the Father has given it, krinete, you do, in effect, pass this judgment upon yourselves, and out of your own mouth you shall be judged; you will not have it by Christ, by whom alone it is to be had, and so shall your doom be, you shall not have it at all." "


Were Acts 13:46 to use the same verb and/or grammatical structure as Acts 13:48 you might have a case for comparitive meaning, but seeing as it doesn't there's no reason to accept such a notion.

Could God justly condemn these Jews (or any unbeliever) for rejecting His Word if He made them reject it? No; such thinking makes God a liar and a hypocrite. But that's Calvinism for you.

Please explain for the kids at home how Calvinism teaches that God MAKES men reject Him. Try to use quotes. Historic creeds would be even better.

 

[orthotomeo]

part 2

Was the Law just something God made up because He needed some substance by which to judge the blessings and sanctions of the covenant?

Paul says it was added because of transgressions (Gal 3:19).

That reminds me...which aspect of Christ do you recommend we follow: Christ "according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3; 2 Cor 5:16) or Christ "according to the revelation of the secret" (Rom 16:25)? They're not the same - which do you choose?

You're going to have to explain that question a little better.

It's already as simple as can be. Look at the three verses above and you'll see exactly what I mean.

Like there's a biblical alternative? Besides, God invented dispensationalism (1 Cor 9:17; Eph 3:2). As has been pointed out, dispensationalism not only preceeds them all but is supported by the best authority an idea can have: God thought of it.

Fru: Yup...and waited to let us all in on it until the 19th century. Too bad for the rest of the Christian faith...the joke's on them, huh?

No. It was there the whole time in Paul's letters. That Christendom began to ignore it during Paul's lifetime isn't God's fault. It's exactly what He predicted would happen.

And don't be a hypocrite - you're reformed faith is also a last-quarter development. With it's alleged core of solas, it excludes 1,500 years worth of believers prior to Luther.

Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles. James was wrote to the circumcision. Two different (but related) audeinces. Two different (but related) Gospels. Two different (but related) apostles. Two different (but related) aspects of Christ. Best to keep them separate!

Fru: Wow. You avoided using the word 'dispensation.' Good for you.

Again you choose a bit of irrelevant nastiness rather than actually addressing what I wrote.

Tell me..how much of your Bible do you skip over on a regular basis because it doesn't apply directly to you?

Please understand me here: All of the Bible is FOR us, but not all of the Bible is written TO us, nor is it all ABOUT us. As always, it's simply a matter of keeping things in their proper context.

Lately I've concentrated on Paul's epistles because I've been teaching a 3-month stretch of Sunday school on "Living the Christian Life according to Paul." Only in Paul's letters will you find the positional truths of who and what we are "in Christ," a knowledge of which is VITAL to proper spiritual growth. Since Paul's the only one who taught these truths, to Paul I go.

But I do not ignore the rest of the Bible. I don't know anyone who does. We simply "rightly divide" the Word (2 Tim 2:15) by "testing the things that differ" (Phil 1:10).

Within the last month alone I've listened to several of Sproul's messages specifically in relation to the Law of God as it pertains to the Christian.

And what is Sproul's basic point on that? I'm curious.

So what in your estimation IS evidence of salvation?

I believe you're asking the wrong question; you're assuming there is such evidence for us to see in others, so you want to know what it is. And under the covenants - under Law - there was to be such evidence ("By their fruits...").

But there is no proof-positive that someone else is saved during this dispensation of salvation by grace ALONE through faith ALONE without works.

Even a person's testimony of having heard, understood and believed the Gospel isn't an accurate standard UNLESS we define the Gospel VERY CLEARLY when we ask the question "Have you believed the Gospel?" (otherwise, there are people who will take advantage of a stupidly phrased question to get you to leave them alone - "Do you believe in Jesus?" "Yeah, I believe in Jesus").

Others may have sincerely believed a false gospel combining faith and works, and can still say, "Yes, I believe the Gospel."

So we must define exactlly what we do and do not mean by "the Gospel."

And even then, all we have to go by is someone's testimony - not their exterior - about whether they've really trusted Christ's death, burial and resurrection for the individual's sins against God. This makes perfect sense if salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, without works.

Likewise, there is no "hard evidence" that a person is not saved UNLESS a person says they haven't heard the Gospel, or has heard it but rejects it. Again, this makes perfect sense: if salvation is by grace thru faith in Christ, then the "proof" likewise goes back to a matter of faith (or lack of it) in what God has said. So we can't really know. The salvation transaction is between the individual and God. No works preceed it, no works accompany it, and no works have to follow it as "proof."

We can't infallibly know any heart but our own. So, since the heart is where salvation happens, there is no external proof/evidence/sign under grace of whether someone else is saved. Only God knows, and the individual. We can only take them at their word. We may DOUBT (as Paul did) but we can't KNOW, so we can't JUDGE by presence or absence of what we think a saved person should act like. We CAN pray for others, however!

So if there's any "evidence" at all, it is what someone testifies according to a CORRECT understanding of who Christ was, what He did, and why it matters for them.

BTW, fruit and good works SHOULD follow salvation because we're created in Christ to do good works. But I know of no place where Paul said the apparent absence of such fruit and works, or the presence of sin, proved (as Lordship Salvation says) someone isn't really saved.

Note Paul told individuals in Corinth to "examine YOURSELVES {not "examine each other" or "examine your works"} to see whether you are in the FAITH. Don't you know your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you do not stand the test?"

How were they to "test" and "examine" themselves to see if they were "in the faith" or that Christ was in them? Well, asking the question answers it! Paul told them to see if they'd done the one thing required for anyone to be saved: have I heard, understood, and believed the Gospel of grace? Paul preached it to them - had they believed it?

That's the same test for us, and is why the whole "election/reprobation" argument simply gets in the way.

If we sent you back in time to Corinth, I have ZERO doubt you'd write off most of them as religious reprobates.

[bold]Fru: Well, thank you, o, for that kind sentiment.[/bold]

Do you deny it?

What's the point, o? I have no disagreement with the notion that works can be "faked" or that one who appears outwardly righteous may inwardly be unregenerate. What's your point?

Simply that Paul's Gospel gives assurance of eternity, NOW, without works as a requirement FOR salvation or as evidence OF salvation. It's all about faith. Calvinism's election gospel, on the other hand, gives no such assurance (hence the "P").

BTW: I am not questioning your salvation - if you have trusted Christ's death, burial and resurrection to have paid for your sins, then you are saved. You're just confused by all that Augustinian baggage you're carrying around.

Curses...foiled again! So far you've given them a glimpse of what the Reformed view is, but I'd hardly say you've shown it to be anti-Biblical (except in your own mind).

Keep reading.

Please provide me with the chapter and verse which says "one isn't regenerated until he/she believes the Gospel." I have no doubt you think you have one.

Romans 8:28-30. Romans 10:8-18.

Mmm-hmm. Shall we discuss the matter of causality, o, or will you persist in making more rediculous claims about what I actually believe?

Feel free. In fact, start a thread on it.

Straw man. Calvinists don't believe that faith is both the means of regeneration and the conduit of it.

I know that. I was contrasting what Calvinists do believe and what Paul taught. Look, I know what objections you'll raise when I pose my questions. Not because I'm psychic but I used to believe as you now do.

You operate from a presumption that is in question, namely that regeneration follows faith.

And you're starting from the opposite assumption. Whose assumption is the correct one? Start a new thread on this, too, if you like.

If that is not true, then our position that regeneration precedes faith does not leave us in self-contradiction.

And if it IS true, you need to get yourself some new theology, yes?

Weigh your words carefully, o, before you stand here and accuse me of preaching a false gospel.

I already have weighed them and see no reason to retract or modify. I have no intention of being nasty, but Calvinists (those who really know their Calvinism, which isn't every Calvinist) preach a God who tells all who hear His Word that they can be saved, even though He doesn't really mean it. That makes that gospel a lie. And not only is that gospel false, Calvin's god - who says what he doesn't mean - it is a false god.

Again I am not questioning anyone's salvation - I am only addressing the logical implications of the theological baggage they want to throw onto the backs of others.

I'm sorry...remind me again where I said my sin nature is gone.

Fascinating. . .you reject eradicationism? Do you have both the old Adamic nature and the new nature coexisting inside you?

Umm..never said we could [keep the Law perfectly.

But you HAVE to, if you place yourself under any point of the Law, even if only for sanctification. The Law is an all-or-nothing deal. Oh, let me guess: "But we're under grace, so God will forgive me for any part of the Law I break." Well, if you're under grace you don't need the Law.

It's people like you that keep the apologists of the world busy. People like you lead to councils.

Sorry, authority for such councils is found. . .where?

But I half-agree with you: send me back in time and let Calvin get his hands on me, and I'll end up with a terminal case of rope burn (around the neck).

Actually, from a theological standpoint it means AGAINST the Law, which very aptly describes you. But thank you for going on record as being antinomian. At least I need not draw it out of you.

From your theological standpoint many words can mean things other than they appear to mean (see "all").

From my standpoint (which, for me, is what counts) I am not "against" the Law; I only put it in its proper perspective. It's made for the unrighteous, not those in Christ. Why's that so hard for you to accept?

But here's your chance to prove me wrong on the Law: point to a passage of Pauline Scripture where the so-called 10 Commandements are excluded from the Mosaic covenant, thus making them binding on believers today.

Sing with me now...

o/~ Redeemed from the Law...
Oh blessed condition...
I can sin all I want....
And still have remission! o/~

Dual fallacy: Straw man/cheap shot.

While it is true someone in Christ CAN theoretically sin all they want and still be forgiven (see Col 1:12-13), the idea is abhorrent to me beyond words.

Moreover, I've never met one of these legendary boogeyman Antinomians. They seem to be kinda like Bigfoot and Nessie -- theoretically they MAY exist but no one's ever bagged one.

But if I ever do meet one, I'll offer correction and exhortation.

o.

 

[orthotomeo]

Unless that adulterous pastor repents, he'll die in sin, which would prove he was never elect even though he is a Calvinist. Would you say that is so?

Fru: 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."

John was an apostle to the circumcision (Gal 2:2-9) so you are not able to apply what he said to the Body of Christ.

But more specifically, the "they who went out" are those John calls "antichrists" in v. 18.

So are you willing to call the adulterous Calvinist pastor (who is still a Calvinist pastor) an antichrist? You'll have to, if you want to be consistent with what John wrote.

Or is he a believer who has been overcome in unrepentent sin, and needs to repent?

I don't suppose it matters that dozens of Romans, Arminians and Wesleyans have, over the years, gone to Geneva. That would require the renouncing of pretty much everything they used to believe, at least as far as the specifics of Wesleyan/Roman/Arminian theology is concerned.

Nice attempt at a dodge; that means you saw my point.

Exchanging the true Gospel (which c/r folks generally preach and believe) for the false gospel of Rome would prove those ex-Calvinist ministers never were saved at all, wouldn't it?

Since when does our salvation rely on whether or not we're a Calvinist? If you really want to know why they did, ask them. There's no point asking me as I a) don't know them or their situation, and b) do not have personal experience with that scenario.

Again: Wouldn't a renunciation of Calvinistic doctrine, lasting unto death, be construed by Calvinists as failing to perservere in the faith? Thus proving the converts to Rome were never really saved at all, even tho they had been strong Calvinists?

By the way, I do find it curious that you use "Calvinism," "Reformed Theology" and "Covenant Theology" interchangeably.

Only because, for the most part, they are interchangable. Calvinism seems to be the most well-known distinctive of c/r theology, and c/r folk tend to be Calvinists. There are exceptions, sure, but I'm talking majority.

I happen to know personally at least two Dispensational Calvinists (well, one's actually Amyrauldan).

I, too, know several dispensational Calvinists. For the most part, they came to see the Mystery from Calvinistic backgrounds and never shook that monkey off their backs when they left their original denominations. Others did.

I understand Calvinistic dispensationalists to be relatively rare. In the churches I'm personally familiar with (which themselves are a tiny minority in Dispyland), Calvinists tend to belong to an older generation that is not being replenished (they're dying out). As a pastor in his 70s told me, "A few more funerals and Calvinism will no longer be an issue."

Wrong. Paul says the Law is for the unrighteous, not the righteous. Christians are dead to the Law the means of justification AND as the means of sanctification.

Fru: So, let me get this straight. What purpose does the Law of God serve to the Christian?

None. The only purpose it has for us is when we use it to witness to the lost.

I agree we have no covenantal obligation to keep the Law.

Right... [/quote]

We are redeemed from the curse of the Law.

Amen!

But are you saying we have no moral obligation to keep the Law of God?

Correct. We have no obligation to keep the Law as such BECAUSE we now have a higher obligation "in Christ" to walk in and by the Spirit Who GAVE those Laws to begin with. See the difference? HE will produce the God-pleasing life in us. Even now, we can't do it by straining and sweating to keep a code that no longer applies to us. That's exactly what some in Galatia were doing (trying to perfect in the flesh, by the Law, that which had begun by the Spirit).

LOL! Well, isn't that nice. Either I'm a self-righteous finger-pointing legalist, or I'm a defeated, joyless and frightened spiritual cripple. Either way, denying it does no good because you're on to me. Couldn't possibly be that I'm more than a conqueror, full of joy in the Lord, bold in the Spirit, healed, cleansed daily, seeking humility and seeking after the Law of God because I wish to please Him who purchased me?

Only if you KNOW you're elect first. And since you can't know you're elect, you can't know you're any of those other things you listed, either. I believe you're sincere but all that may mean zip if God has reprobated you in eternity past. So you might be deluded...sincere, but sincerely deluded.

I've seen R.C. Sprould admit to those same old "Am I elect?" doubts, even at his current stage of life. He HOPES, but he himself says he isn't always SURE. I know he wouldn't want pity but that makes me feel sorry for him.

So. . .do you have greater assurance than Sproul? If so, what is the basis for it?

I don't trust in my keeping of the Law to save me. I don't seek to keep His Law because I think it will save me...I seek to keep it because it's the right thing to do. Because I love the Lord.

I believe you love the Lord. But keeping the Law is NOT the right thing to do!

Keeping the Law is something YOU do FOR Him, not something HE does IN you. If we have self-effort to rely on, what do we need His power for? We don't.

"But we keep His Law by His power!" No, He's not going to help us keep a code that (a) was never intended for the saved, but for the lost and (b) we're dead to in Christ.

What God expects of us - according to Paul - is to daily walk in Him, resting in Him, reckoning those things He says are true of us (but don't LOOK or FEEL true!) to nonetheless BE true. LOVE fulfills the Law, and we can only generate that love by His power. There's no place for the Law here. More on this in a minute.

It sure sounds to me like you couldn't deal with your conscience and the Law convicting you of some things in your life, and instead of working to fix them you chose to embrace antinomianism and the notion that you don't NEED to do anything righteous because Christ already did it all, so you can just sit back and and reap the benefits of Calvary. But I'm just speculating here.

Your point is reasonable, but the premise is wrong.

I still sin because I still have the same old sin nature inside me. I still have sins to repent of, daily. But I don't deal with sin by going to the Law. The Law is NOT INVOLVED. The only thing the Law ever could do was point out sin, not help us deal with it. In Christ the demands of the Law are fulfilled in me while bypassing that very Law.

Christ, indwelling we who believe, is central to everything. That is a distinction I don't think you see, but it is what Paul taught (again, more on this in a minute).

So tell me...what happens if "His Spirit" leads you to do something that contradicts the Law?

Why would He do that?

Why did Paul say we were dead to sin? Because the wages of sin is death. Through Christ's atoning sacrifice and our union through baptism with his death and burial, we have become "dead to sin" and are no longer under its curse. That does NOT mean that we can simply discard it as being inconsequential.

Two things:

1. Being "dead to sin" does not mean sin is dead in you. It isn't; you know that. This is a "positional" truth having to do with our position in/identification with Christ. He died to sin; therefore we, in Him, are counted by God as having also died to sin. That's why we are to "reckon" on that fact in order to gain victory over our old sin nature. Like salvation, it's a matter of faith not works (law).

2. Paul said that in Christ we are "alive to God," not "alive to the Law." The presence of Law implies work yet to be done. But Christ did all the work needed for our justification (birth) AND our sanctification (growth). All we need do is (a) realize who we are and what we have "in Christ," as opposed to who we WERE "in Adam" (and you'll learn that only from Paul), then (b) reckon those things to be true in our daily lives because God says they're true. THAT, Fru, not lawkeeping, is our only means of victory.

YOU insult Him when you tell Him that the standard of His character and His righteousness are no longer to be sought after and we can just do whatever we wish.

Again you put in my mouth words I don't even believe. Will you stop that already?

We aren't saved because we try to keep the Law...we try to keep the Law because we're saved.

That's exactly my point: YOU "try to keep the Law." And why do you do it? Because lawkeeping (which you do not do consistently - no one can) is the 'evidence' you look for as proof you are elect.

Trusting Christ isn't enough - even reprobates (theortically) can do that and end up in the Lake of Fire. So your faith is no proof (tho Paul said it is).

By trying to keep the law you place yourself under a burden Christ died to FREE you from!

But Christ gave a NEW body of truth through Paul - it's called the revelation of the mystery.

Do tell me, o. What was the mystery? Was the mystery that since we are now graciously saved by the blood of Christ that we are free to do that which God previously said He ABHORS?

No. That is not the mystery.

Does our Christian liberty leave us free to sin?

God forbid, tho you and I are still quite capable of it if we choose to do it (look at Corinth).

Note I didn't say it was RIGHT. I only said we still have the ability because of the old sin nature still residing inside us alongside the new.

Logical fallacy: straw man. The writer of the letter did not state, nor did he imply (nor, I suspect, does he believe) that Christians should go on sinning simply because we're under grace and completely forgiven all sin. That seems to be your implication. In any case, the Law is not our standard. Christ is, "according to the revelation of the mystery" (Rom 16:25).

Tell me something, please. What was CHRIST'S standard?

Clarification: Do you mean Christ according to the flesh, or Christ according to the mystery?

(continued)

 

[orthotomeo]

I do not think you will find a greek scholar that will agree with you on that.

Since you've already shown a tendency to ignore Greek when it suits you to do so, I won't waste time on it. Not with you.

Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Ummm...in case no one else noticed it (RNMOMOF7 didn't), Lydia already worshipped God.

The non elect will always choose to reject the word of God. No one will be in Hell that does not deserve to be there

You're too intelligent to actually believe what you just wrote. The non-elect reject the Word of God because He makes them do it (so said Calvin). They CAN'T "deserve" Hell because God made that decision before they even existed. You are truly blinded if you can't see that.

Did God put the tree in the garden when He knew they would eat it? Was that "fair"

If Calvinism is true, no, it wasn't "fair" because God MADE them sin THEN punished them for it! How fair is that?

But the Bible displays God as not knowing in advance what they would do - hence His grief and anger when they did it (else His emotional display was an act, a lie). He certainly made allowance in advance ("from the foundation of the world...") for the possibility that they WOULD do it, but THEY had the choice to do it or not, and He waited to see what they would do.

Did God harden the Pharoes heart until He slaughtered the infants ? Was that "fair"?

Your problem is that there's more than one word in the Hebrew for "harden." At the risk of you ignoring this like you do Greek:

One word for "harden" is qashah, meaning "cruel, stubborn." This is used once to describe Pharaoh's heart (Ex 7:14).

Before this, a different word is used: chazaq, "to strengthen."

Pharoah had ALREADY determined to keep Israel as slaves (Ex 3:21) so God "hardened" (chazaq) the resolve Pharaoh ALREADY had in his heart (Ex 4:21). God knew His plagues would soften Pharaoh up (and we see that happening), so God hardened his resolve to keep the Jews captive so that all 10 plagues would fall on all 10 of Egypt's gods.

Everything Pharaoh did was already well within his nature and power of choice - God didn't MAKE him do any of it, but only strengthened his resolve to do it.

Moreover - GOD DID NOT HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART SO THAT HE COULD NOT BE SAVED. Paul's whole point in bringing up Pharaoh is that God used a wicked pagan Gentile king to glorify Himself. NOT that God chooses who to harden against salvation.

God takes nothing away from the non elect. They come into this world just as the elect do. God allows them to make choices just as He does us.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're speculating about what you THINK Calvin taught, rather than actually reading what he wrote.

He allows them to freely choose what they will without His grace. Their free will is fully intact they will always choose what they prefer.

You keep dodging the point - you refuse to address it - if God reprobates people to the Lake of Fire before they're ever born, before they ever sin, THEN says He's condemning them FOR UNBELIEF, that makes God a liar because their unbelief is the DIRECT RESULT of His reprobating them.

You DO know that's what Calvin taught, don't you? Or do you even care? I've said before I won't respond to you but now I mean it - you're defending what you THINK Calvinism is all about, rather than the real thing, so I'm wasting my time even answering you.

 

[orthotomeo]

Please explain for the kids at home how Calvinism teaches that God MAKES men reject Him. Try to use quotes.

"We call predestination God's eternal decree by which He compacted with Himself what He willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others" (Institues, 1, p. 926).

"... when God, after making a covenant of eternal life, invites any people to himself, a special mode of election is in part understood, so that he does not with promiscuous grace elect all of them. ... We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction" (3:21:7)

"When God prefers some to others, choosing some and passing others by, the difference does not depend on human dignity or indignity...If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God, though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction...the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined...God chose out of the condemned race of Adam those whom He pleased and reprobated whom He willed" (8:5)

"Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? ... God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as He will, whether good for his mercy's sake or to evil according to their merits... God finds the material cause for exercising His wrath in all except those whom He graciously elected. For, he says, the rest of mortal men, who are not of that number, are born of the same human race from which those come and are made vessels of wrath for their benefit" (10:11).

 

[orthotomeo]

Instead of my saying "God makes men reject Him," perhaps it would be more precise to say "God makes men TO reject Him," since that is the essence of Calvin's teaching on the subject. But the result is the same either way.

o.

 

[Chappie]

Not so fast. In Acts 13:48, the subjects are the recipients of the action. They did not ordain/appoint themselves. The verb itself may be the same as in 1 Cor 16:15, but the grammar is completely different. As many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Appointment preceded belief.

That they "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life" is a figure of speech, not a literal truth with respect to their salvation. It is Christ who ultimately is the judge, not they themselves.

Were men actually the judge of themselves, who would be condemned?

Do you not judge yourself unworthy of eternal life? I certainly do. Were I to judge myself otherwise I would do violence to any notion of grace on God's part in my salvation. I have judged myself unworthy of eternal life in ACCEPTING the Word of God whereas they have 'judged themselves unworthy of eternal life' in rejecting the Word of God.

The Geneva Bible has the following note regarding Acts 13:46: "By this your doing you pronounce as it were sentence upon yourselves, and judge yourselves."

Matthew Henry explores it further:

"If men put the gospel from them, God justly takes it from them; why should manna be given to those that loathe it and call it light bread, or the privileges of the gospel forced on those that put them away, and say, We have no part in David? Herein they judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life. In one sense we must all judge ourselves unworthy of everlasting life, for there is nothing in us, nor done by us, by which we can pretend to merit it, and we must be made sensible of this; but here the meaning is, "You discover, or make it to appear, that you are not meet for eternal life; you throw away all your claims and give up your pretensions to it; since you will not take it from his hands, into whose hand the Father has given it, krinete, you do, in effect, pass this judgment upon yourselves, and out of your own mouth you shall be judged; you will not have it by Christ, by whom alone it is to be had, and so shall your doom be, you shall not have it at all." "

(1) "If men put the gospel from them, God justly takes it from them; why should manna be given (2)to those that loathe it and call it light bread,

(3)or the privileges of the gospel forced on those that put them away, and say, We have no part in David?

(4)Herein they judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life.

(5)In one sense we must all judge ourselves unworthy of everlasting life, for there is nothing in us, nor done by us, by which we can pretend to merit it, and we must be made sensible of this; but here the meaning is,

(6)"You discover, or make it to appear, that you are not meet for eternal life;

(7)you throw away all your claims and give up your pretensions to it;

(8)since you will not take it from his hands, into whose hand the Father has given it, krinete,

(9)you do, in effect, pass this judgment upon yourselves, and out of your own mouth you shall be judged;

(10)you will not have it by Christ, by whom alone it is to be had, and so shall your doom be, you shall not have it at all." "

Judging from the numerous acts of volition (10) in this short paragraph, it would have to be said that the writer’s words definitely contend with, rather than support election. If you want to use Matthews’s words to support your contentions, then you must also use them where they do not support you. Either make the tree good and the fruit good, or make the tree bad and the fruit bad. A good tree does not produce good fruit.

I especially call your attention to #3 ***(3)or the privileges of the gospel forced on those that put them away, and say, We have no part in David?*** Why should the Gospel itself be forced upon them that put it away, as well as the privileges that it entails. Did you forget that it was initially forced upon you. If you did not believe that God forced it upon you (Remember your own Total Depravity) then you could not make your claim of being one of God’s elect. Remember how God had to chase you down, rip out that old heart and give you a new one. Did you resist the Holy Spirit in that old sinful state before God could regenerate you?

Were Acts 13:46 to use the same verb and/or grammatical structure as Acts 13:48 you might have a case for comparative meaning, but seeing as it doesn't there's no reason to accept such a notion.

Please explain for the kids at home how Calvinism teaches that God MAKES men reject Him. Try to use quotes. Historic creeds would be even better.

He does it by rejecting men and never giving them the opportunity to accept him. It is fallacy not hold one accountable not only for their actions, but justice demands that they be held accountable for the consequences as well. He does it by setting standards that are impossible for them to meet. Standards that are far beyond their abilities; and never giving them the opportunity to meet his standards. Now that how Calvinism does it. Still we know that it is just a misrepresentation of the God of heaven and earth. God is real, this picture of him is Calvinism..

A man shoots another person, and that person dies. Is he accountable for his act only. (Shooting the person) Or is he also accountable for the persons death also. God is accountable to his very nature, not only for his acts only; but for the consequences also….

 

[Chappie]

Instead of my saying "God makes men reject Him," perhaps it would be more precise to say "God makes men TO reject Him," since that is the essence of Calvin's teaching on the subject. But the result is the same either way.

Go Ortho:
That is the meat of the matter....

 

[orthotomeo]

Good post, Chappie! Some questions in there I'd like to see answered.

Fru: regarding your question of whether God MAKES people reject Him, let me ask this...is there anything in the universe that is not the direct result of God's sovereign decree? If so, what is it?

o.

 

[Chappie]

Calvinism appears (to me) to be a theology based on worshiping God's wrath. To me this ought not be. From my perspective, God warns us of his wrath that we might be warned and therefore warn others. Yet we have those that love to worship wrath. We ought to worship,praise him for his goodness, and fear his wrath.