How is it possible for a man to be responsible under Calvinism?

[Hammster]

What does this have to do with the OP?

We've drifted way past the OP. Are you going to answer the question, or just dodge some more? Just cut to the chase.

 

[shturt678]

This post is patently false. I pull Scriptures together to demonstrate principles and doctrines, all of which you reject. Why? Because you pull verses together that our out of context with each other to try to defend your own opinions.

Since you have charged me with "pitting" Scripture against scripture, I CHALLENGE you to prove that absurd charge. If you can. Give me a specific post # and what Scriptures I used to "pit" against.

Regarding "line upon line", it's you Calvinists who don't respect it.

"line upon line" is sarcastic talk, done in monosyllables to make simplicity of the prophet's message ridicuolous.

We go more with IIPet.1:20, 21, ie, Scriptures explain Scriptures.

The fact that "Jesus tasted death for all" simply means quite something different to you.

Just ol' old head's up Jack

 

[guuila]

You said He didn't die for wolves. You've yet to explain what you meant. Now you say it's irrelevant. What else are you posting that's irrelevant that we shouldn't question?

I would also like to know why FreeGrace2 said Jesus didn't die for wolves. Does that mean there are people who Jesus didn't die for?

 

[shturt678]

We've drifted way past the OP. Are you going to answer the question, or just dodge some more? Just cut to the chase.

I think you're feeling the heat, ie, just throw in the towel.

God in his omniscience knew from eternity which one I would pick and then God's sovereignty and man's responsibility remain in tact rings true thus before the bell rings, throw in the towel, ie, hate to see you so stressed.

Just ol' old Jack that cares too.

 

[guuila]

God in his omniscience knew from eternity which one I would pick and then God's sovereignty and man's responsibility remain in tact rings true thus before the bell rings, throw in the towel, ie, hate to see you so stressed..

Welcome to believing in an omniscient God! You've done nothing to address the actual issue.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I ignored nothing. I explained it. To ignore means that I haven't dealt with it. So don't falsely accuse. Just say, "I don't accept your explanation," and give your reasons.

I do that all the time. Are you paying attention?

I did not say that you said that God kills us the moment we step out of line. I am saying that this is the logical conclusion.

You are free to say whatever you want to say. But your "conclusion" is false. It is based only on your faulty understanding of what I said, and the verses I provided.

I am saying that if the Corinthians are an example that God kills Christians for approaching the Lord's table in an unworthy manner, then Ananias and Sapphira are an example that God kills Christians for ONE lie. I am trying to get you to accept the logical conclusion that flows from your premise regarding the Corinthians.

What is my premise? That God has killed believers for abusing the Lord's Table? Isn't that what Paul SAID? So why are you calling that "my premise"? The point is that believers who live their lives out of line are going to get discipline from God, from "weakness and sickness" all the way to "death". Or do you disagree, and ignore the warnings from Scripture?

And it has happened over and over again since that time and God hasn't killed anyone.

A rather arrogant statement, if you really believe yourself. How in the world do you know that? You'd have to be omniscient to know that. Or does God "talk" to you? Which is it?

On one occasion I personally witnessed Christians approach the Lord's table in an unworthy manner. No mass illnesses and deaths followed. Your application of scripture is absurd.

Your failure to understand Scriture is more absurd.

They all come to repentance now.

Just another statement from arrogance or omniscience. Which is it this time? You have no idea whether "all" come to repentance now or not. In fact, John spoke of the "sin unto death" which you seem to be thumbing your nose at.

You are calling God's love and faithfulness into question.

Hardly. I'm pointing out principles from God's Word, which you are thumbing your nose at.

God dealt differently when the church was in its infancy stage.

Did He tell you that, or do you knnow that from omniscience? Which is it this time?

Yes, those who have been trained by it. The verb is passive. The son of God is not choosing to cooperate and be trained. God is doing the action. God does the training. What son does God not train? His love and faithfulness guarantees the results.

So your opinion re: Heb 12 is that all who are disciplined will be benefitted by it. Is that correct? I'd say you are sorely naive about the issue.

So, all the struggling and failing believers around the world (just ask any pastor) aren't really believers at all? Slick default position.

God's love guarantees that I will be corrected.

Wrong!! God's love guarantees that He will bring divine discipline into your life for the purpose of correction, but because your view of theology closely resembles that of puppetry, you wrongly think that He's just pulling the strings and the correction will be made. Unfortunately, your opinion doesn't match reality.

Why are believers warned against grieving and quenching the Holy Spirit? Since there is that warning, the reality EXISTS! And those believers who live consistently in that state are in real danger of God's hand of discipline. Exactly what Heb 10:31-
It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

This was written to believers, and is a warning to believers.

My experience confirms it.

No one's "experience" confirms anything. I've already cited the FACT that many pastors the world over can testify the many believers who struggle daily with sin and spiritual failure and never grow up. In fact, that was Paul's very real concern; that believers would grow up spiritually.

Why did he write this:
Gal 4:11 - I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

1 Thess 3:5 - For this reason, when I could endure it no longer, I also sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the tempter might have tempted you, and our labor would be in vain.

Do you really think Paul was telling these people that he doubted their salvation and standing in the Lord ?

In those contexts, he addressed them as "brothers", so obviously he considered them believers.

Or this verse: My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you

His concern for those believers was that Christ would be "formed in them". He was speaking of spiritual growth, which obviously is not guaranteed from what Paul wrote about and was concerned about.

Believers who persist in disobedience and unfaithfulness are subject to God's hand of discipline, which may include weakness, sickness or even death.

It says that God's chastening yields the peqaceable fruit of righteousness.

What you seem oblivious to is the fact that not everyone who receives discipline is trained by it. Some become resentful, just as in the physical realm. Just as any teacher about how students react to discipline.

Your view is extremely naive.

Only by faith you can understand this. Your theology reflects that you may not walk by faith.

This is a pitifully absurd statement. Waling by faith means to be fully trusting in God and relying on Him for all our needs.

You demonstrate a believer who seem oblivious to the issues involved in spiritual growth. Your comments remind me of what the Hebrew writer wrote in 5:12 -
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

My experience is that Calvinists have very little understanding of what spiritual growth is.

Uh, the passage makes a CLEAR distinction between human discipline from the Lord's discipline which is seen in the RESULTS of the discipline. Btw, I do have children. I am going to be a grandpa in June.

Congratulations!

I am trying to tell you that this should be your conclusion based on your premise regarding the Corinthians.

No, it should NOT be that conclusion. What happened to the Corinthians is an example of what God MAY do to other believers for a lifestyle of inappropriate living.

Consider 1 Cor 10:6 and 11 -
6Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved.

11Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Why would Paul tell the Corinthian believers (and US by extension) that what happened to the Jews in the desert were EXAMPLES to US? So that we would know that God's hand of discipline can be very extreme.

Your comments suggest that you don't believe that God uses extreme measures anymore, and what happened to the Exodus generation and the Corinthians was just a "one time" kind of thing. Nonsense.

If God's killing them for approaching the table in an unworthy manner is His normal way of dealing with us, then His striking dead Ananias and Sapphira for ONE lie is also His normal way of dealing with us when we lie.

Your OBVIOUS ERROR is in saying it's "His normal way of dealing with us". I never said that. What happened to the Corinthians and the Exodus generation are EXAMPLES to US, for heaven's sake!! Paul said so. You need to wake up and realise this.

You see, you are taking a really soft attitude about sin, and you and your Calvinist buddies charge FG theology with antinomianism, or encouraging sin. Seems you are the one who may be encouraging sin by your very LAX attitude on God's attitude towards sinful lifestyles.

But the warnings are in Scripture. They are real because the potential is real. But Calvinism has its head in the sand and claims without evidence that all believers will persevere to the end, yet no verse exists to support that notion.

You can't have it both ways! If the one situation establishes a principle, then so does the other.

Your logic is very flawed. The principle is that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[shturt678]

I would also like to know why FreeGrace2 said Jesus didn't die for wolves. Does that mean there are people who Jesus didn't die for?

Oh come on now my friend Griff, Jesus even died for those that deviate from the Word, ie, who tear, rend, and even kill with their cruel fangs (destructive spiritual effect of all false posting) meaning wolves of course, ie, unintentionally putting forth truths mixed subtly with half truths.

Just ol' old Jack trying to think who He didn't die for?

 

[FreeGrace2]

the "everyone" mentioned is the people in the following verses, just like the "Everyone" in a classroom

Opinion noted, and rejected. It's not at all like "everyone in a classroom". The classroom has a clear limiting context. There is NO limiting context in v.9 and the claim that what follows v.9 is what v.9 is talking about is absurd.

The problem is that Calvinists have to defend the claim that Jesus died for "ALL the elect", which is hardly their claim.

Calvinists always use an exclusionary phrase, like "Christ died ONLY for the elect", or "Christ died JUST for the elect".

I've never heard a Calvinist claim that Christ died for ALL the elect. Ever.

Yet, that is what you guys have to defend, given what Heb 2:9 SAYS. Absurd.



, when a teacher says "everyone sit down", doesn't mean the entire human race, but everyone that I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]

 

[FreeGrace2]

We know that Jesus didn't taste death for all individuals, because then He would be a liar:

"I lay down my life for my sheep"
"The reason you do not beleive is because you are not my sheep"

Digging your heels in and continually asserting that the "everyone" in Heb 2:9 refers to everyone in the human race (instead of the everyone that the passage starts to talk about) doesn't actually make it true.

Yep, just Skala still digging in his heels and refusing to understand the difference between "MY" and "THE" and "not MY" concerning sheep.

 

[guuila]

Oh come on now my friend Griff, Jesus even died for those that deviate from the Word, ie, who tear, rend, and even kill with their cruel fangs (destructive spiritual effect of all false posting) meaning wolves of course, ie, unintentionally putting forth truths mixed subtly with half truths.

Just ol' old Jack trying to think who He didn't die for?

Why are you arguing with me? FreeGrace2 is the one who said Jesus didn't die for the wolves.

 

[shturt678]

Welcome to believing in an omniscient God! You've done nothing to address the actual issue.

Thank you for your feedback, ie, heartfully accepted. What about my post #984, ie, doesn't this have something to do with the actual issue?

Wow, FG2 really making you folks feel the heat, ie, time for you folks to throw in the towel.

Just ol' old Jack that appreciates all you folks

 

[FreeGrace2]

You said He didn't die for wolves. You've yet to explain what you meant. Now you say it's irrelevant. What else are you posting that's irrelevant that we shouldn't question?

I did explain it. Apparently you either missed it or just don't understand it.

Just concede the point, as you initially said you were willing to do. Or were you just kidding and didn't mean it?

 

[guuila]

Opinion noted, and rejected. It's not at all like "everyone in a classroom". The classroom has a clear limiting context. There is NO limiting context in v.9 and the claim that what follows v.9 is what v.9 is talking about is absurd.

The problem is that Calvinists have to defend the claim that Jesus died for "ALL the elect", which is hardly their claim.

Calvinists always use an exclusionary phrase, like "Christ died ONLY for the elect", or "Christ died JUST for the elect".

I've never heard a Calvinist claim that Christ died for ALL the elect. Ever.

Yet, that is what you guys have to defend, given what Heb 2:9 SAYS. Absurd.



, when a teacher says "everyone sit down", doesn't mean the entire human race, but everyone that I'm talking about.

John Gill disagrees with you:

that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man;
that is, Christ was made a little lower than the angels by becoming man, and assuming a body frail and mortal, that he might die for his church and people: to "taste death", is a Jewish phrase, often to be met with in Rabbinical writings; (See Gill on Matthew 16:28) and signifies the truth and reality of his death, and the experience he had of the bitterness of it, it being attended with the wrath of God, and curse of the law; though he continued under it but for a little while, it was but a taste; and it includes all kinds of death, he tasted of the death of afflictions, being a man of sorrows all his days, and a corporeal death, and what was equivalent to an eternal one; and so some think the words will bear to be rendered, "that he by the grace of God might taste of every death"; which rendering of the words, if it could be established, as it is agreeable to the context, and to the analogy of faith, would remove all pretence of an argument from this place, in favour of the universal scheme: what moved God to make him lower than the angels, and deliver him up to death, was not any anger towards him, any disregard to him, or because he deserved it, but his "grace", free favour, and love to men; this moved him to provide him as a ransom; to preordain him to be the Lamb slain; to send him in the fulness of time, and give him up to justice and death: the Syriac version reads, "for God himself through his own grace tasted death for all"; Christ died, not merely as an example, or barely for the good of men, but as a surety, in their room and stead, and that not for every individual of mankind; for there are some he knows not; for some he does not pray; and there are some who will not be saved: the word "man" is not in the original text, it is only (uper pantov) , which may be taken either collectively, and be rendered "for the whole"; that is, the whole body, the church for whom Christ gave himself, and is the Saviour of; or distributively, and be translated, "for everyone"; for everyone of the sons God brings to glory, ( Hebrews 2:10 ) for everyone of the "brethren", whom Christ sanctifies, and he is not ashamed to own, and to whom he declares the name of God, ( Hebrews 2:11 Hebrews 2:12 ) for everyone of the members of the "church", in the midst of which he sung praise, ( Hebrews 2:12 ) for every one of the "children" God has given him, and for whose sake he took part of flesh and blood, ( Hebrews 2:13 Hebrews 2:14 ) and for everyone of the "seed" of Abraham, in a spiritual sense, whose nature he assumed, ( Hebrews 2:16 ) .

 

[FreeGrace2]

We've drifted way past the OP. Are you going to answer the question, or just dodge some more? Just cut to the chase.

Which "question" do you have in mind? If it's about wolves and thieves, my answer is that Christ died for everyone. You should be able to figure out what that means, relative to your question.

If it's some other question, you're going to have to repeat it.

 

[guuila]

Thank you for your feedback, ie, heartfully accepted. What about my post #984, ie, doesn't this have something to do with the actual issue?

Wow, FG2 really making you folks feel the heat, ie, time for you folks to throw in the towel.

Just ol' old Jack that appreciates all you folks

#984 is the post I responded to.

 

[guuila]

Which "question" do you have in mind?

Why did you put question in quotes?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I would also like to know why FreeGrace2 said Jesus didn't die for wolves. Does that mean there are people who Jesus didn't die for?

Why do you think Jesus wasn't referring to actual animals when He mentioned "wolves"? Why do you always make such wild suppositions?

Do you think Jesus would die for any animals, wolves or otherwise? Not very wise, actually, to think so.

Your questions continue to be rather absurd.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why are you arguing with me? FreeGrace2 is the one who said Jesus didn't die for the wolves.

Well, at least we know that griff seems to be pushing for Jesus to have died for animals literally. Wowsers.

 

[guuila]

Do you think Jesus would die for any animals, wolves or otherwise? Not very wise, actually, to think so.

Didn't you say he died for THE sheep? So sheep aren't animals, but wolves are?

 

[guuila]

Well, at least we know that griff seems to be pushing for Jesus to have died for animals literally. Wowsers.

Desperation is evident by your comments.