How, then, is the Calvinist refuted? (2)

[Easystreet]

1

 

[nobdysfool]

Gordon, you need to chill out. Trashing those who in good conscience disagree with you is neither Christian, or right. Hard as it may be for you to believe or accept, not everyone agrees with you, and it is not because they are any of the egregious and slanderous epithets you are slinging around, it is because we honestly see a different view.

All of your railing against the Calvinists and even the mods, and cries that certain people be silenced is really an attempt to hijack the threads to prevent any view other than your own, especially if that view is Calvinism. You're not looking for a level playing field, you're looking for one where the Calvinist is shut out. That puts the lie to your claims that you want a place where discussion can be freely engaged in. There is a little right called "freedom of speech", and it prevents what you are trying to do.

Like it or not you're going to have to learn t live with it. Perhaps your time would be better spent learning what logical fallacies are, because you engage in nearly the whole range of them.

 

[Easystreet]

.

 

[Easystreet]

.

 

[cygnusx1]

Folks let me inform everyone that this hypocrite quotes freedom of speech and he and two others are constantly reporting and complaining to the moderators about my post. Who is it that is against freedom of Speech? You got it - it is this hypocrite. My friend you have just stuck your foot in your mouth big time.

Freedom of Speech - You and two others seek to stop free speech. You are one of the guilty one seeking to stop opposition to anything anti Tulip. You, with several others are the ones constantly reporting my post to silence me. So you are the hypocrite here. I don't do that to you. I don't run to Momma every time you spew out your hate and venom and anti FW. You are a whiner, complainer, and childish. You can't stand the debate, you are the one with several others that when opposition comes you cry and complain and run to the moderators.

Don't lecture me because you are the hypocrite here.

Your must eat your own words because it is one as one among several that mirrors what you accuse me of.

You are the hypocrite not me. You just simply can't stand opposition. First graders run and complain to the teacher and that is you. Every little bit of opposition and you are off to the moderators whining and mooning and crying and complaining.

It is people like you that destroy a forum. You are a phony hypocrite hiding behind the scirts of the form moderators. You cry woof and then run off to momma to compain and then try to misslead all that read the post that you are the the angel. You are crazy.

is this love , IS THIS USING freedom of speech RESPONSIBLY

 

[cygnusx1]

You change the translation whenever it suits you. You also simply make up whatever you want in a verse whenever you want to. Here is another example of Ben Johnson simply rewriting Scripture....

Eph2:5-8, "WHEN we were dead in sins, we were made alive ...THROUGH FAITH". ~ Ben Johnson FALSE Bible!!!!

My Bible says....

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

We were made alive when we were Spiritually dead. And the dead don't do living things. This is why they need a resurrection FROM the dead, which the Bible calls "born again." In fact, this verse which you had to rewrite because it doesn't even say what you need it to say claims that WE (those of us who are or will be saved) were made alive TOGETHER with Christ and raised up TOGETHER with Christ and already made to sit in the heavenlies IN Christ.

Here is a Greek study for you, Ben. Tell me the tense of the verbs in the relevant portion, if you can.

You don't understand my posts, given that you called Arminianism Fatalism.
You don't understand Calvinism.
You can't translate Greek.
You constantly rewrite the Bible to suit your needs.

You need to repent.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist

Woody.​

excellent post bro !!!!

does ben use a translation or just any that he thinks agrees with him ???

 

[nobdysfool]

Folks let me inform everyone that this hypocrite quotes freedom of speech and he and two others are constantly reporting and complaining to the moderators about my post. Who is it that is against freedom of Speech? You got it - it is this hypocrite. My friend you have just stuck your foot in your mouth big time.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't even bother to respond to something like this. However, I want to make it clear that I am not a hypocrite when it comes to this. Freedom of Speech is a precious right, but that right has boundaries. My freedom ends where yours begins, and vice versa. Freedom of speech does not guarantee an audience. It does not give you the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. And, it does not guarantee you freedom from opposition. You are free to speak, but you do not have the right to demand a forum, you do not have the right to demand an audience. None of us do. We are all free to speak, but finding the place to do so and the people to listen are not guaranteed, nor granted by the right of free speech.

Freedom of Speech - You and two others seek to stop free speech. You are one of the guilty one seeking to stop opposition to anything anti Tulip. You, with several others are the ones constantly reporting my post to silence me.

What you are being reported for is exactly what you are doing here: trashing those who disagree with you. We are not trying to silence your exposition of your views, per se, but the constant belittling, name-calling, baiting, and slander you post against Calvinists is against forum rules, and apparently is being used, at least in part, to defend your views as being right because Calvinists are this and that, which is a logical fallacy, as well as ridiculous. If you weren't engaging in personal attacks, belittling of other's beliefs, and rants like this, there would be no reports.

So you are the hypocrite here. I don't do that to you.

Now, Gordon, you know better. It was you who went on a fishing expedition a few months back, digging up months-old posts of mine and reporting them. What were you trying to do? Get me banned, that's what. So your accusations ring just a bit hollow here. pot.kettle.black. Now who's the hypocrite?

I don't run to Momma every time you spew out your hate and venom and anti FW. You are a whiner, complainer, and childish. You can't stand the debate, you are the one with several others that when opposition comes you cry and complain and run to the moderators.

What we report is exactly what you're doing here. You are making my case for me.

Don't lecture me because you are the hypocrite here.
Your must eat your own words because it is one as one among several that mirrors what you accuse me of.

Whatever. Are you over your tantrum?

You are the hypocrite not me. You just simply can't stand opposition. First graders run and complain to the teacher and that is you. Every little bit of opposition and you are off to the moderators whining and mooning and crying and complaining.

Nope, I guess not. Who's the one who can't take opposition here? I've taken it for years.

It is people like you that destroy a forum. You are a phony hypocrite hiding behind the scirts of the form moderators. You cry woof and then run off to momma to compain and then try to misslead all that read the post that you are the the angel. You are crazy.

Wow! Now he's a psychiatrist, too!

Gordon, are you off your meds? This is looking more and more bi-polar.

Gordon, you can post scripture all day long, and not get reported for it. You can expound on the scriptures, and make your case for your view all day long, and not get reported for it. What crosses the line, is the personal insults, the accusations of sin, the derogatory descriptive terms, the belittling, the name-calling. It does not advance your view, it does not lend weight to your arguments, it causes strife and anger among the brethren, it derails debate and discussion, it causes good people to leave the forum, and, quite frankly, it makes you look bad, because it is so obviously not Christ-like, so it actually undermines your position. Why should anyone take seriously the views of a guy who goes off on others as you have?

 

[Ben johnson]

What are we to say then, is salvation of faith or works?

Faith.

Not true --- your platform makes salvation 100% "grace". By re-defining "faith" as a "second dispensation of grace", Calvinism changes Eph2:8 into "For by grace THROUGH GRACE have you been saved, and FAITH is not of yourselves, it is the sovereign gift of God" (who then claims to be "fair and just").

And the Bible treats faith as if it were not a work.

Jesus very clearly said, in Jn6:27-29, "Faith is a work of God that WE WORK".

But the problem which I bring up time and again is that it only says that faith is not a work, it does not say that intrinsic faith would not be a work.

Calvinism uses fancy technical words to explain that which is not plainly obvious. (Except it's obvious to casual readers.)

If someone objects that your doctrines make faith a work of men, you cannot respond by saying that the Bible says that faith is not a work. We all agree on that...

JESUS didn't agree on that...

but that is not a defense of your position, it is the very heart of our objection. Everything a man creates is his work. If man creates his own belief, then faith is a work.

You can't "sweep away" Jesus' words.

The Jews said "What must we do, that we may WORK the works of God?"
Jesus said, "This is the WORK of God (that you DO), that you believe".

Salvation is active, not passive.

He WHO acts, is wise; he who REFUSES to act, is foolish. Matt7:24-27 conflicts Calvinism, foundationally....

 

[Ben johnson]

BTW...feel free to quote me...Ben just puts me on ignore because it gives him an excuse to avoid answering questions that expose the gaping flaws in his errant theology.

Ben doesn't respond to you, because of what you do with the response, the majority of the time.

 

[Ben johnson]

In the process only to stop later, perhaps. But no one can actually enter, not "be entering," but "has entered," without election, no.

Thank you --- the position of "are entering", can only be conveying "true belief".

And neither does the text say that the Pharisees were sucessfully keeping out the elect.

So, "stop/shut-off" doesn't really mean "stop/shut-off"?

God uses means...

Please show me the verse that says "God uses EFFECTIVE MEANS to accomplish sovereign election".

and for this reason life carries on for us the same way both in a Calvinist or a Free-will perspective. This is why it is so vital to avoid arguments from silence, because the end result of both views looks quite similar. People believe and they are saved. People have their hearts softened by various mechanisms, or hardened by various mechanisms.

Can we explore this? You say "People believe and are saved" --- is this speaking of "saving-belief"? Then you say "people have their hearts hardened..." The same people?

In Heb3, is he talking to the saved, when he says: "Do not harden YOUR hearts --- take care lest any one of you be hardened by deceitful sin, to falling away from the living God. We are partners in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."

What's he conveying here?
1. He's not talking to the saved.
2. He's not talking about "hardened to UNSALVATION".
3. He's talking to SAVED, but it's 100% effective means to KEEP them from hardened-unsaved.
4. He's warning the saved, not to be hardened by deceitful sin to falling away from God and from salvation.

Which of these do you hold?

In context, Paul is referring to Jews who had never believed in Christ but found him to be a stumbling block and would not accept him as Messiah. Belief was not a requirement to be part of ethnic Israel, only right birth mattered for that. Of course they were once part of the tree, and they were broken off for unbelief, and they will be grafted in if they believe. But they were not in the tree to begin with because of belief, they were part of the tree because they were branches "by nature."

He's conveying movement; first, the brances were cut off --- and for unbelief. BELIEF will RESTORE them.

That they once believed, is fully established when he says "YOU can ALSO be cut off (just like THEY were)!"

So there's three movements spoken of:
1. The natural branches cut off for unbelief
2. YOU, wild branch, CAN be cut off IF unbelief
3. The natural branches can be RESTORED, if belief

You see that it's not credible to assert "they were never there in the FIRST place".

What is this constant attempt to make OSAS a calvinistic doctrine? It isn't.

Calvinism is one of thee "OSAS views". As in, "Once TRULY saved, a sovereign-elect person CANNOT become unsaved".

OSAS and perseverence are two very different things. Those warnings are indeed very serious warnings, and if a man does not persevere he will perish.

They're not serious in your doctrine, at all; because non-perseverance is not possible, for he who is sovereignly-elect.

A warning against something that is impossible, is not a warning.

 

[frumanchu]

Not true --- your platform makes salvation 100% "grace". By re-defining "faith" as a "second dispensation of grace", Calvinism changes Eph2:8 into "For by grace THROUGH GRACE have you been saved, and FAITH is not of yourselves, it is the sovereign gift of God" (who then claims to be "fair and just").

False. You are re-defining means of causality to set up a false presentation of the Calvinist position. Grace is the formal cause. Faith is the instrumental cause.

Calvinism uses fancy technical words to explain that which is not plainly obvious. (Except it's obvious to casual readers.)

Calvinism uses PRECISE words because theology is too important to be subject to ambiguity and imprecision. Those who decry the use of precise "technical words" are usually the ones who benefit from ambiguity.

You can't strive with us over the precise meaning of certain Greek words and then turn around and ridicule us for insisting on the use of precise English ones.

 

[frumanchu]

Ben doesn't respond to you, because of what you do with the response, the majority of the time.

Yes. I examine it, scrutinize it, and persist in refuting it...despite claims that I avoid it, wish it would go away, and fail to respond to it.

Ben, I tried to go down the path of finding common ground with you and seeking to reach points of mutual agreement so that we could focus on the heart of our disagreements and not get bogged down in peripheral arguments that went nowhere. You decided you were more concerned with being right in your arguments than finding common ground and setting aside secondary issues.

So please don't play this off as being my fault that we cannot have rational, well-reasoned discussions because it is YOU who is undermining any chance of such.

 

[CCWoody]

What are we to say then, is salvation of faith or works?

Hozabout what the Bible says....

"By grace are you saved."

Period, end of story. It is not I believe (i.e. have faith) enough to be saved. It is not I will exercise my faith. It is not I will activate my faith. There is NO "I will" in salvation.

By grace are you saved and THAT not of yourself; it is a gift of God. When the Lord bestowes grace for salvation on a man, he is saved. That is what the Bible says. That is what the Bible teaches. And that is why I am a Calvinist for only Calvinist affirm that salvation is by grace.

Salvation belongs to the Lord.
Your blessing is upon YOUR people.
Selah.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist​

Woody.​

 

[frumanchu]

Can we explore this? You say "People believe and are saved" --- is this speaking of "saving-belief"? Then you say "people have their hearts hardened..." The same people?

In Heb3, is he talking to the saved, when he says: "Do not harden YOUR hearts --- take care lest any one of you be hardened by deceitful sin, to falling away from the living God. We are partners in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."

What's he conveying here?
1. He's not talking to the saved.
2. He's not talking about "hardened to UNSALVATION".
3. He's talking to SAVED, but it's 100% effective means to KEEP them from hardened-unsaved.
4. He's warning the saved, not to be hardened by deceitful sin to falling away from God and from salvation.

Which of these do you hold?

Why can you not understand the concept of his speaking to them by their confession??

He's warning those who confess to be Christians not to be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. The parallels drawn with Israel are quite intentional, Ben, because as Paul tells us in Romans 9 "they are not all Israel who are called Israel."

He's conveying movement; first, the brances were cut off --- and for unbelief. BELIEF will RESTORE them.

Yes...restore them to the covenant community.

That they once believed, is fully established when he says "YOU can ALSO be cut off (just like THEY were)!"

NO. That is a presumption on your part because that is the very thing you are trying to prove. You refuse to distinguish between the visible and spiritual Israel and ignore the function of covenant in Scripture.

So there's three movements spoken of:
1. The natural branches cut off for unbelief
2. YOU, wild branch, CAN be cut off IF unbelief
3. The natural branches can be RESTORED, if belief

You see that it's not credible to assert "they were never there in the FIRST place".

Nobody is asserting that, Ben. That's the problem. Where we disagree is not on the issue of whether they were "there" in the first place, but what being "there" actually implies. We maintain (and Scripture supports vis a vis Rom 9:6) that the tree is the covenant people of God. The nation of Israel embodied that covenant people until the time of Christ. However, not all Israel were truly the spiritual Israel, and those who were not were in their unbelief cut off. When we confess Christ we become identified with that covenant community and are grafted into it, but just as with Israel those who are not truly His will likewise be cut off.

Let us please keep the point of disagreement clear: our disagreement is with the notion that being part of the tree necessarily equates to being in a state of justification and salvation.

Calvinism is one of thee "OSAS views". As in, "Once TRULY saved, a sovereign-elect person CANNOT become unsaved". They're not serious in your doctrine, at all; because non-perseverance is not possible, for he who is sovereignly-elect.

A warning against something that is impossible, is not a warning.

False. Again, you both continue to hold us to your presumption regarding their salvation and at the same time discard without justifiable reason any notion of such warnings being instrumental means of preservation.

You are trying to shoehorn us into your predefined categories when you should be dealing with what we ACTUALLY believe.

 

[CCWoody]

I don't agree; the future is fully at our will.

See, I knew the Open Theist inside of you would get out if pushed.

Breath the fresh air, Mr. Open Theist.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist​

Woody.​

 

[LJSGM]

Romans 2
5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

 

[cygnusx1]

Romans 2
5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

once again .........


Respecter of Persons

There is a subtle twisting of God's inspired words taking place in many modern versions in how they are rendering the phrase "respecteth not persons". This is so subtle, that I believe most Christians have not noticed it. The change in meaning produced by versions like the NKJV, NIV, and NASB unfortunately fits in with so much of modern, popular theology, that many would actually consider it to be an improvement over the KJB's reading. It fits the philosophy of the natural mind of man.

The concept that "God has created all men equal" does not come from the Holy Bible. God obviously has not created all men equal, nor does He deal with every single individual or nation in what seems to us as a fair and impartial manner. Many have become so influenced in their thinking by the reasoning of the world, that they cannot discern this obvious truth.

God has created, formed and made each of us. Yet He has not given to all equal intelligence, good looks, physical skills, nor spiritual gifts. "He divideth to every man severally as He will." Exodus 4:11 tells us "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?".

Not all are born in a country which even has the word of God in its culture, or where it would be openly taught and encouraged. Psalm 147:19,20 "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Some are born in abject poverty, disease and ignorance, while others are blessed with abundant crops, education and families that care for them. "The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2.

The phrase "to accept the persons of men" or "to respect persons" does not mean, as the modern versions have translated it, "to show partiality" or "to show favoritism". One of the chief arguments of the Arminian side against the doctrine of election is: "God does not show partiality or favoritism, so election cannot be true." The new bibles are reinforcing this fallacious argument.

Not to show partiality is to treat all men equally; and this God does not do, as His word clearly testifies. Daniel Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "respecter of persons" as a person who regards the external circumstances of others in his judgment, and suffers his opinions to be biased by them. God's dealings with a man are not based on outward appearance, position, rank, wealth or nationality. Rather, His own sovereign purpose and pleasure of His will are the only deciding factors.

We are told in Deuteronomy 7:6-8 "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people: for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you". Deuteronomy 10: 14-17 "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day." Verse 17 "For the LORD thy God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, nor taketh reward." Here both election and not regarding persons are used in the same context.

God says He chose only the fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and their seed to be His people, and not the others. That He "regardeth not persons" means that He does this, not on the basis of their nationality, nor their good moral character (for they were a stiffnecked and rebellious people), but because is was His good pleasure to do so. Other Bibles that agree with the KJB here are the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901, the Geneva Bible, the 1936 Hebrew-English, Young’s, Darby’s, the Spanish versions and Webster’s Bible. However the NKJV, NIV and NASB have "shows no partiality". If God chose Israel to be His people, and not the others, is not this showing partiality?

Deut. 14:1,2 "Ye are the children of the LORD your God...and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." Why did not God choose the other nations to be his children and to know his laws? Isn't this showing partiality or favoritism?

One verse among the hundreds that have been messed up by the NKJV, NIV and NASB is 2 Samuel 14:14. Here Joab saw that king David's heart was toward his son Absalom. So Joab sends a wise woman to speak to the king. In verse 14 she says: "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again: NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him." In other words, we all must die, whether rich, poor, Jew, Gentile, man or woman, king or servant; God does not look at our social station and on this basis exclude some from death.

Agreeing with the King James reading here are the 1917 Hebrew English, Young's, the Geneva Bible, Webster’s Bible, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras. But many bibles, including the NKJV, NIV and NASB have the ridiculous reading of "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE", instead of "neither doth God respect any person". This is a lie and a contradiction. In this very book in chapter 12:15 "the LORD struck the child" of David and Bathsheeba and it died. In I Sam. 2:6 we are told "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up", and in Deuteronomy 32:39 God says "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

It is not that the Hebrew will not allow the meaning found in the KJB, that the NKJV, NIV and NASB have so badly mistranslated 2 Samuel 14:14. They all likewise have translated these same words in other places as they stand in the KJB and others.

This phrase "no respecter of persons" is found six times in the New Testament, and every time the modern versions have distorted the true meaning. Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, James 2:1 and 9, and Acts 10:34. In each case it has to do with not receiving the face, outward position, nationality or social rank of another. But God does not treat all people the same, nor are we told to do so either. We are to withdraw from some, avoid, exclude, reject, separate from, and not cast our pearls before others. Most importantly, God Himself chose His elect people in Christ before the foundation of the world and "of the SAME LUMP" makes one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour - Romans 9:21. This is definitely showing partiality, but it is not respecting persons.

Romans 2:11 says "For there is no respect of persons with God." So also read the ASV, Geneva, Revised Version, Spanish "acepción de personas", Lamsa, Webster's, 21st Century KJB, TMB, and the KJB II of Green. Young's says there is no "acceptance of faces". But the NKJV, NASB say "no partiality" and the NIV says "not show favoritism". The Worldwide English N.T. says: "God does not love some people more than others". Yet this very book declares in Romans 9 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth...Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated...I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy...So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy...Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

Please consider the true meaning of the phrase "no respecter of persons" and contrast it with the modern rendering. I hope you will see that it is not the same at all. Only the KJB contains the whole truth of the counsel of God.

http://www.scionofzion.com/calvinism_kjb.htm
Will Kinney


http://www.scionofzion.com/calvinism_kjb.htm


http://www.scionofzion.com/calvinism_kjb.htm


http://www.scionofzion.com/calvinism_kjb.htm

 

[CCWoody]

We don't have to reason-it-out --- Paul clearly says it. We can walk either in the flesh (if we do, we must die); or, we can put to death the flesh, by the Spirit.

Yes, Ben, YOU need to reason it out. When you are in the flesh, you cannot do ANYTHING to please God, including "put to death the flesh," which would please God. The reason is simple: you cannot do anything to please God while in the flesh, including getting out of your fleshy state. The Scriptures state it, why don't you believe it?

This is illogical; I can do EVERYTHING to change the future --- because I have full control over "today". Don't you remember a line from my favorite story, "A Christmas Carol"? "If man's deeds lead to certain ends, might not those ends be changed, if the deeds are changed?"

No, Ben, because God already knows the end. Do you honestly think that God's mind is a white board that you can simply erase and rewrite however you will? Do you really think you are more powerful than God?

So it's "non-sequitur" to say "we CANNOT change what WILL be". Take Judas for instance --- the prophecy reflected future events; yet Judas had full control, and made his own choice. This is why Jesus admonished the remaining Disciples --- "Don't be so sure you won't leave; one of you already is."

Think, Ben, please!!!!

Judas went just as it was written of him. Freely. God KNEW his end and there was nothing that Judas or anyone else could do to change what God already knew.

God's mind is not something you can simply rewrite.

I don't agree; the future is fully at our will.

Calvinism: The future is closed. God's knowledge is exhaustive and unchangeable.
Arminianism: The future is closed. God's knowledge is exhaustive and unchangeable.
Open Theism: The future is not closed. God's knowledge is not exhaustive. The future is written by man's free will.

See, you don't even know what you believe, Ben. You are clearly an Open Theist. Get out of the closet and breathe some fresh air.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[Bob L]

Wow, ok, ok, ok, everybody just hold on, geez. It seems like everybody can just pull out one tiny little phrase from scripture and say aha! See, I'm right!

If this thread is going to be a close, clear look at Calvinism, shouldn't we have some organization, some format where we take piece by piece for examination?

Maybe I'm being naive, especially since we're way over 1,000 posts here, but it would seem impotant for everybody to find some common ground to start with. Maybe we could use the 5 point system, in order or out of order I don't care, come up with a list of proof texts that the Calvinists among us can agree upon as a primary list of supporting scriptures and then evaluate them in context. Then we could move on to the other 4 points?

In defernce to Nobodysfool, we could even save perserverance of the saints for last, just to keep Ben off track. (haha)

Anybody up for this type of approach?

 

[Ben johnson]

So please don't play this off as being my fault that we cannot have rational, well-reasoned discussions because it is YOU who is undermining any chance of such.

We cannot have "rational, well-reasoned discussions"; and you know it. If you wish to believe it is my fault, that's ok with me.

Time after time it's been demonstrated that it's best for me not to reply, whatever I might say.

So we'll agree to disagree, and you already know that I consider you my brother and friend.