Denying Calvinism...

[Frogster]

Paul says we were "by nature the children of wrath," which refers to our birth, our depraved natures, our walking in the sinfulness of both flesh and mind, prior to the quickening of the Lord. We are not considered the Vessels of Wrath from eternity, but the sheep of God.



Christ in His human nature did-- but the Father from eternity had already proposed their damnation.

Red above, if your interp were true, then we have to think that Jeus did not now they were already dammed, or why long for them to come? Why long for a predestined damnation bound person to come, when they can't?

Jesus did not know the plan from the Father?

 

[FerventDisciple]

Don't forget, the hyper-Calvinist John Piper would also say that God also purposes individuals to eternal punishment where they have no opportunity to repent of their sin. Even though this is nothing less than heretical, it is still the logical outworking of Calvinism.

That would be the doctrine of double predestination, this is too much even for many Calvinists, though Calvin himself taught it.

 

[Frogster]

Paul says we were "by nature the children of wrath," which refers to our birth, our depraved natures, our walking in the sinfulness of both flesh and mind, prior to the quickening of the Lord. We are not considered the Vessels of Wrath from eternity, but the sheep of God.



Christ in His human nature did-- but the Father from eternity had already proposed their damnation.

It also means that Jesus and the father were contrary, it would mean that Jesus wanted them to come, while the Father did not according to your interp..

"I and the father are one and the same". There can be no contradictory. But your interp sets them at odds.

 

[Frogster]

So what causes you to differ from the unbeliever who receives the same "leading" of the Spirit and does not come to the Lord?

People are not robots.

 

[Doctor Octavius]

That would be the doctrine of double predestination, this is too much even for many Calvinists, though Calvin himself taught it.

Too much for "many" Calvinists? You have no idea what you're talking about. This is in the Westminster Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Second Belgic Confession. It's also taught by Luther, and all the Reformed theologians. It is not the definition of "hyper" Calvinism. It's a part of standard Reformed theology, upheld by all Reformed Churches, where ever they are.

 

[Frogster]

Calvin even said, man is not totally dead, or something to the matter.

 

[Doctor Octavius]

It also means that Jesus and the father were contrary, it would mean that Jesus wanted them to come, while the Father did not according to yuor interp..

"I and the father are one and the same". There can be no contradictory. But your intep sets them at odds.

Christ was in the process of prophesying their damnation, that He would send prophets and Apostles to them, which they would kill, for the express purpose of laying on the Jews the blood of their fathers, which he declares they "cannot escape". He was not unaware of the condemnation He had just declared on them, which would come upon them in the year 70AD.

People are not robots.

Never said we were.

 

[Doctor Octavius]

Calvin even said, man is not totally dead, or something to the matter.

"Not totally dead" in the sense that man has power to believe in Christ somewhere hidden in him? No, he says no such thing.

 

[Frogster]

Christ was in the process of prophesying their damnation, that He would send prophets and Apostles to them, which they would kill, for the express purpose of laying on the Jews the blood of their fathers, which he declares they "cannot escape". He was not unaware of the condemnation He had just declared on them, which would come upon them in the year 70AD.



Never said we were.

uh uh, he longed or wanted for them to come. Why long for something the Father did not long for or want?

 

[Frogster]

"Not totally dead" in the sense that man has power to believe in Christ somewhere hidden in him? No, he says no such thing.

In his Eph 2 commentary it says something like there is a bit of life there or something to that matter. That is pretty well known.

 

[Doctor Octavius]

uh uh, he longed of wanted for them to come. Why long for something the Father did not long for or want?

Because the human nature of Christ might wish that He could have saved them. The human nature of Christ might wish also to avoid the torment of crucifixion, and yet still righteously uphold God's will.

Mat_26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

 

[Frogster]

Because the human nature of Christ might wish that He could have saved them. The human nature of Christ might wish also to avoid the torment of crucifixion, and yet still righteously uphold God's will.

Mat_26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Sorry, he was still God.

Just admit it, he wanted them, and they would not come. all showing tha they could have come, but chose not to.

And again, Jesus would not contradadict the will and wisdom of the plan. How could he long against the father's Plan?

 

[Doctor Octavius]

In his Eph 2 commentary it says something like there is a bit of life there or something to that matter. That is pretty well known.

Can you give a link to the silly blog or website that thinks it has a gotcha and who has told you to think that it is "well known"? Calvin writes:

"He does not mean simply that they were in danger of death; but he declares that it was a real and present death under which they labored. As spiritual death is nothing else than the alienation of the soul from God, we are all born as dead men, and we live as dead men, until we are made partakers of the life of Christ, — agreeably to the words of our Lord,
“The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” (John 5:25)
The Papists, who are eager to seize every opportunity of undervaluing the grace of God, say, that while we are out of Christ, we are half dead. But we are not at liberty to set aside the declarations of our Lord and of the Apostle Paul, that, while we remain in Adam, we are entirely devoid of life; and that regeneration is a new life of the soul, by which it rises from the dead. Some kind of life, I acknowledge, does remain in us, while we are still at a distance from Christ; for unbelief does not altogether destroy the outward senses, or the will, or the other faculties of the soul. But what has this to do with the kingdom of God? What has it to do with a happy life, so long as every sentiment of the mind, and every act of the will, is death? Let this, then, be held as a fixed principle, that the union of our soul with God is the true and only life; and that out of Christ we are altogether dead, because sin, the cause of death, reigns in us."

Calvin speaks only of our senses or the remaining faculties of the soul, all that which allows us a "type of life," but which is irrelevant to the things of God. He is not claiming that we have an ability to believe in Christ because we are only "half-dead", which He expressly denies in opposition to the Catholics.

 

[Frogster]

Because the human nature of Christ might wish that He could have saved them. The human nature of Christ might wish also to avoid the torment of crucifixion, and yet still righteously uphold God's will.

Mat_26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

But Jesus was willing to go to the cross, but they would not come, they were UNwilling, so your usage of that text, really does not apply. In fact, it shows that Jesus had free will, just like those who chose not to come.

And why are you acting like the Humanity of Jesus, was ignorant of the plan, and besides, it would be sin to contradict the farther, so on both counts you're wrong.

 

[Doctor Octavius]

Sorry, he was still God.

Yes, but that doesn't negate his human nature. Your argument would make that verse I just presented impossible.

Edit:

But Jesus was willing to go to the cross, but they would not come, they were UNwilling

Christ was willing to submit to the will of the Father-- but He did not want to come to the cross, and asked that it somehow would be avoided. Thus Christ may want something, and yet will submit to the will of the Father, in His human nature.

nd why are you acting like the Humanity of Jesus, was ignorant of the plan,

I had pointed out that Christ had just prophecized their condemnation-- a condemnation in fact that we can say did not even apply to any of the people then living, except for a few, but on that generation that would be alive during the destruction of Jerusalem. By definition I did not say Christ was "ignorant of the plan."

 

[Frogster]

Can you give a link to the silly blog or website that thinks it has a gotcha and who has told you to think that it is "well known"? Calvin writes:

"He does not mean simply that they were in danger of death; but he declares that it was a real and present death under which they labored. As spiritual death is nothing else than the alienation of the soul from God, we are all born as dead men, and we live as dead men, until we are made partakers of the life of Christ, — agreeably to the words of our Lord,
“The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” (John 5:25)
The Papists, who are eager to seize every opportunity of undervaluing the grace of God, say, that while we are out of Christ, we are half dead. But we are not at liberty to set aside the declarations of our Lord and of the Apostle Paul, that, while we remain in Adam, we are entirely devoid of life; and that regeneration is a new life of the soul, by which it rises from the dead. Some kind of life, I acknowledge, does remain in us, while we are still at a distance from Christ; for unbelief does not altogether destroy the outward senses, or the will, or the other faculties of the soul. But what has this to do with the kingdom of God? What has it to do with a happy life, so long as every sentiment of the mind, and every act of the will, is death? Let this, then, be held as a fixed principle, that the union of our soul with God is the true and only life; and that out of Christ we are altogether dead, because sin, the cause of death, reigns in us."

Calvin speaks only of our senses or the remaining faculties of the soul, all that which allows us a "type of life," but which is irrelevant to the things of God. He is not claiming that we have an ability to believe in Christ because we are only "half-dead", which He expressly denies in opposition to the Catholics.

I have it right here.

He says .." Some kind of life I acknowledge does remain in us, while we are still strangers to Christ".

He just talked about Adam also, so he it alsking about the old nature, the fallen creation.

 

[Doctor Octavius]

I have it right here.

Well, can you explain "what you have"? What does he mean?

 

[Frogster]

Yes, but that doesn't negate his human nature. Your argument would make that verse I just presented impossible.

Edit:



Christ was willing to submit to the will of the Father-- but He did not want to come to the cross, and asked that it somehow would be avoided. Thus Christ may want something, and yet will submit to the will of the Father, in His human nature.



I had pointed out that Christ had just prophecized their condemnation-- a condemnation in fact that we can say did not even apply to any of the people then living, except for a few, but on that generation that would be alive during the destruction of Jerusalem. By definition I did not say Christ was "ignorant of the plan."

your posting, but not dealing with the facts head on.

Why would Jesus long for something that the father did not want? You pose a contradiction.

Besides, Jesus layed down his life it was his free will do do so, so again, you hang on a verse, that is not helping you.

THEY would not come, it does not say , they COULD not come.

 

[Frogster]

Well, can you explain "what you have"? What does he mean?

have it, is his commentary, and he said>>>>

He says .." Some kind of life I acknowledge does remain in us, while we are still strangers to Christ".

 

[Frogster]

Yes, but that doesn't negate his human nature. Your argument would make that verse I just presented impossible.

Edit:



Christ was willing to submit to the will of the Father-- but He did not want to come to the cross, and asked that it somehow would be avoided. Thus Christ may want something, and yet will submit to the will of the Father, in His human nature.



I had pointed out that Christ had just prophecized their condemnation-- a condemnation in fact that we can say did not even apply to any of the people then living, except for a few, but on that generation that would be alive during the destruction of Jerusalem. By definition I did not say Christ was "ignorant of the plan."

Well, for him to want, what the Father did not want, we must presume ignorance, or a contradiction, by your interp.:o