One horrendous doctrine

[Van]

Folks, post #60 is an ad homenim, devoid of on topic content.

 

[Van]

I have demonstrated that RT is an horrendous doctrine, robbing Christ of His compassion for the lost. I have demonstrated RT is unbiblical, because election is conditional, James 2:5, election occurs during our lifetime, 1 Peter 2:9-10, Christ died for all mankind, 1 John 2:2, Total Spiritual Inability is a false doctine, Matthew 23:13, Matthew 13:20-22, and Irresistible Grace is a false doctrine, Matthew 23:13. The RT rebuttal? Van the verses you cite do not say what you say they say. That's it folks

Pay no attention to what the RT posters say I have done, they are all ad homenims, off topic logical fallacies, that do not deflect the truth that RT is unbiblical.

Here is RT in a nutshell, you were either saved or damned from all eternity, for all eternity, and nothing you do during your life will alter that outcome for yourelf or for your loved ones. It is a false doctrine. Whoever believes in Him shall not perish, and God has not foreordained who is able to believe, is the true doctrine.
Spread the word, teach your children, plant, water, and cultivate the ground, God desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth. May God bless

 

[Yekcidmij]

Folks, post #61 is an ad homenim, devoid of on topic content.

Something I've learned from this thread:

I'm sick of the phrase "ad homenim".

 

[Monergism]

Quote edited out by staff (Uphill Battle.) No violation, simply quoted staff deleted text.

I believe a quote from Augustine should suffice. Though what Augustine has said, which I shall quote soon, was on the matter of Genesis 1:1, nevertheless, I find his words illuminating. Augustine once said:

"Rather they are proud and know not [the] meaning, but love their own [interpretation], not because it is true, but because it is theirs." -The Confessions 12.25.34

 

[nobdysfool]

Folks, post #60 is an ad homenim, devoid of on topic content.

That does not make it untrue. Funny how when you insult, defame, and question the character of Calvinists, that is "on topic", but when we answer your false and egregious charges, then it's "off topic". And of course, in your view, any "off topic" post is untrue by definition (yours). The lack of logical thinking and consistent application in your view and replies is truly appalling.

Yet another double standard.

 

[heymikey80]

Folks, post #61 is an ad homenim, devoid of on topic content.

ROFL!ROFL! Since the recent removal of a post, Van's is post #61!

OK Van, with the recent renumbering now we'll agree!

 

[Van]

Lets return to the topic, the horrendous doctine. Is salvation available to all who receive the gospel? Not according to the horrendous doctrine. Did Christ die as a ransom for all? Not according to the horrendous doctrine. Does God credit our faith in Christ as righteousness? Not according to the horrendous doctrine. Does God choose believers, who love God and are rich in faith? Not according to the horrendous doctrine. Does John 1:12-13 teach that after we receive Him, such that we believe on His name, God gives us the right to become children of God? Not according to the horrendous doctrine.

The horrendous doctrine robs Christ of His compassion for the lost for His love is limited to the lost sheep of Israel. But I have good news. The horrendous doctrine is unbiblical. Scripture says that we must do to be saved is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 16:30-31.
But what if His sacrifice was only for a preselected group? Again, the good news is that His sacrifice provided the propitiation or means of salvation, for the whole world, 1 John 2:2. For God so loved the world that He gave His one of a kind Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Once Again...


NO personal attacks.

Address the TOPIC
not
the POSTER

 

[Oye11]

It is fun to imagine what Paul`s encounter with the Phillipian jailer (Acts 16-29-31) would have been like from a Calvinist perspective.

jailer "What must I do to be saved."

Paul "Do?? Nothing! In fact what you are suggesting is a response on your part which amounts to salvation by the works of the law. Sorry but all you can "do" is see if the Spirit irresistibly regenerates you then you are saved. You are either elect or you aren`t, and have asked a most ill informed question but of course you knew no better.

OR

jailer "What must I do to be saved"

Paul "Huh? You already are saved brother! The fact that you even show this interest, ask this question, is proof that you have been released from your incessant evil and total depravity through regeneration, and as a consequence are born again and possess the Spirit of adoption. Welcome to the body and kingdom of God."

 

[nobdysfool]

It is fun to imagine what Paul`s encounter with the Phillipian jailer (Acts 16-29-31) would have been like from a Calvinist perspective.

jailer "What must I do to be saved."

Paul "Do?? Nothing! In fact what you are suggesting is a response on your part which amounts to salvation by the works of the law. Sorry but all you can "do" is see if the Spirit irresistibly regenerates you then you are saved. You are either elect or you aren`t, and have asked a most ill informed question but of course you knew no better.

OR

jailer "What must I do to be saved"

Paul "Huh? You already are saved brother! The fact that you even show this interest, ask this question, is proof that you have been released from your incessant evil and total depravity through regeneration, and as a consequence are born again and possess the Spirit of adoption. Welcome to the body and kingdom of God."

Posting fantasies like this does not address the subject. If you disagree with Calvinism, fine, disagree. But do so from scripture, not by taunting and posting juvenile speculations, which are not grounded in truth, but in pointless needling.

If John 1:12-13 proves Calvinism wrong, break it down, and analyse it, and show us why. Making statements that "such and such scripture proves Calvinism wrong" without the analysis of why is just making unsupported statements, and should be viewed as such. We've seen far too much of this kind of polemic from the anti-Calvinist side, and precious little actual scriptural exegesis.

Unsupported statements should not be accepted, nor should they be expected to be accepted.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I have cleaned up this thread (at least the end of it) and deleted some posts. As Gwenyfur stated, personal attacks are NOT acceptable posting.

I might recommend that a few posters on this thread place each other on ignore, it will save themselves, and staff a few headaches.

Please be civil.

Uphill

 

[Van]

John 1:12-13 demonstrates faith before regeneration and even Spurgeon apparently agrees.

Matthew 23:13 demonstrates guys who are entering the kingdom can be shutoff by false teachings. Thus the unregenerate can seek God and believe in Christ such that they are entering the kingdom, but not be irresistibly drawn into the kingdom. This verse demonstrates the doctrines of Total Spiritual Inability and Irresistible Grace are false doctrines.


In Acts, Paul tells a person what he must do, he does not say you are unable to put your faith in Christ because that would be salvation by works. He simply says believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. That's it folks.

 

[squint]

This topic is one of my favorites, and I know I will find resistance from both camps of this issue, but do want to provide some food for contemplation i.e. thought.

The positions of determinism and freewill are a favorite topic of mine because this same issue split the churches of Luther some centuries back, and the churches of my own historical families were also thusly split and divided over these things.

In the observations, scriptures will also provide a clear path out of this mess for "all" parties involved with same.

For the freewill choice camps, I have to say that both God and Satan have access to the wills of mankind, and therefore they are certainly "tamperable" and as such it should become nearly impossible to split and identify just whom is doing what. We know for example that it is the "god of this world" who blinds the minds of the unbelievers. Why then do we not fully implicate the cause of blindness which is upon those thusly blinded, and instead only blame the blinded captives as their unbelief being a product only of themselves? Is that a fair question? I think so!

And to the determinist, though you may think you bow at the feet of A Divinely Sovereign God, why then do you take the entire conclusions of that same Sovereignty unto yourselves? That does present some problems with logic. One cannot claim Divine Sovereignty and then lay claim to the claims of being the determinant of that same Sovereignty. You simply do not have all the information and power that God HAS to exercise His Sovereign Will, and to say you do puts you clearly out of the camp of believing what you say you believe. You could perhaps ascribe to God just a wee bit more intelligence than what you presently have, seeing that we ALL see only IN PART and as in darkness eh?

And now the narrow path...

If we examine one of the primary sources of this conflict, we find that much of it arises from the infamous chapter 9 of Romans, wherein God hardens the one or raises the other according to His Will, just as He did with Pharaoh and with Esau.

When we turn back the chapters to SEVEN of Romans, we find Paul already made the "division" of himself as a preamble to NINE. How is that exactly?

Paul identified that within his own flesh, there also dwelt that which he termed as being NO LONGER I, twice, that being the sin that indwelt his own flesh. He also stated openly that whenever he desired to "do good" that EVIL was also present with him.

Do we not already then see what was being DIVIDED?

So Paul asks the famous "WHAT IF" question.

What IF, in the SAME LUMP, God has placed both a vessel of HONOR and a vessel of DISHONOR, and whatever way the chips fall in this present life, that BOTH OF THESE POSITIONS will SERVE His Purposes, and that same vessel of DISHONOR is also in our own flesh, JUST AS Paul prior observed.

I can elaborate this division quite precisely as that which is also "not of Israel" which was "in Israel" by what Paul termed the "children of the flesh."

Are not the children of the flesh, the same vessel of dishonor that Paul identified as being in his OWN flesh?

Why then do men confer upon themselves as being only ONE vessel. I do not say that ANY of mankind do not have a vessel of honor in their clay lump, but God has also bound in that same lump, yes even in my own flesh, that which is NO LONGER I.

When mankind are DIVIDED in this way, this entire issue GOES AWAY, and we can then LOVE our fellow mankind, knowing also that what is in their own flesh, what BLINDS them is NO LONGER THEM, but that which God has hardened. This does not mean the vessel that most cannot see in their fellow man is NOT THERE. In likewise view, I cannot say I do NOT have that same sin indwelling my own flesh, that VESSEL of dishonor.

Jesus separated these things, these vessels of dishonor from MANKIND constantly during His Ministrations, yet blinded believers STILL cannot divide the Work that Jesus showed us all openly, and instead they take the vessel of honor position unto they and themselves, and they confer only the title of vessel of destruction unto OTHERS whom they are commanded to LOVE.

These things are not right Children of God, but you will find the vessels of dishonor will continue to fight the revealing of their existence in your OWN FLESH. I do not count THAT VESSEL as Gods offspring, nor should you, and you should seek to uphold that vessel of honor in your fellow man, even though he may appear to your fleshly eyes to be an enemy. There are captives of sin who still await the carrying of His Truth in these matters, and dividing among ourselves in a blinded fashion simply is not profitable for eternal treasure.

You are also advised herein, that when you hear this, your own vessel of dishonor will be hardened by Gods Words against the truth of this disclosure. And that too is Gods working against THEM in your flesh.

"Satan cometh immediately to steal" and immediate is pretty close.

"Be wise AS SERPENTS" was an excellent advisement.

enjoy!

squint

 

[nobdysfool]

You are also advised herein, that when you hear this, your own vessel of dishonor will be hardened by Gods Words against the truth of this disclosure. And that too is Gods working against THEM in your flesh.

You pretty much undercut any credibility you might have had with this statement. Saying that if we don't receive what you say is evidence of some sort of hardening by God is rather self-serving.

Sorry, ain't buying it....

 

[Jipsah]

In the Westminster Confession the doctrine of Total Inability Is stated as follows: -- "Man, by his fall Into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation

Maybe you chousl have actually read it before you quoted it, Van. It says precuisely what I've been saying, and what you'd like to constitute as "evasion". Inability of will, dude. We're free to, but we won't. That's why when we try and leave off sinning, we don't. It isn't a matter of can't, it's a matter of won't. We demonstrate our "free will" whenever we sin, because we freely choose to sin. (God would have no reason to be unhappy with our sinning if we had no choice in the matter.)

So thanks, Gen. Custer. We Indians appreciate the gift of the rifles.

so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." [Ch. IX, sec. III ]

Truer words were never spoken.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the RT defenders deny their own doctrines

You mean as you've said, falsely, several times. The trick is that you'd prefer to argue against what you claim we believe rather than what we believe, because then you can "refute" it. That. of course, is dishonest, but hey, if "winning" is everything, well....

They say, that fallen man has no ability to choose life

Inability of will, as you just quoted the WCF as saying. We won't choose life. How many times have I said that? And because of that, if God doesn't save us, we're done for. We've said nothing else.

, yet is free to choose life

Sure are. Nothing hindering us but our own unwillingness.

, but the fact is the doctrine is that those who have not been regenerated have only one choice, death, for they are unable to choose life. QED

Sorry, that's your baloney, and you're conclusion is as bogus as your claims. We won't, will not, choose to save ourselves, even though we are free to if we so choose.

Matthew 23:13 demonstrates that Total Spiritual Inability is a false doctrine. Unregenerate folks received the gospel and were entering the kingdom,

Really? And this before the death and resurrection of our Lord? Dang, in your economy did we really need a Savior? I mean, from the sound of it. all our Lord needed to do was shove those Pharisees aside and let folks go striding into the Kingdom under their own steam, just as they were intent on doing. People could just call on their own intrinsic goodness and Free Will and choose to be saved under the Law.

And their unregenerate effort was sufficient

So there ya are, then! Their own efforts were sufficient to save them. Sp tell me agains why you reckon it was that our Lord had to die? It doesn't seem like your doctrine would require that, since folks were altogether able to save themselves without God's intervention.

 

[squint]

You pretty much undercut any credibility you might have had with this statement. Saying that if we don't receive what you say is evidence of some sort of hardening by God is rather self-serving.

Sorry, ain't buying it....

The Children of God always "buy" the truth of Words disclosure. That which is in the flesh does not, will not, ever.

The resistor ALWAYS resists Gods Word, Works and Ways and is aroused and empowered by The Word, whether you like it or get it.

Romans 5:20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.

Romans 7:8
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.

Romans 7:23
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind

1 Corinthians 15:56
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

enjoy!

squint

 

[Jipsah]

And again Ephesians 1:4 does not suggest in the slightest that people were chosen individually

Despite what it says, right? I mean, hey, it can't mean what it says, 'cause that would sink your nonsensical doctrine without a trace. What Scripture says has to be made to fit the doctrine, right Van? So never mind that the Bible says that God has chosen us from before the foundation of the world. What it really means (according to Van's Doctrine to which the Word must be made to conform) is that we weren't chosen from before the foundation of the world. And that, by cracky, is that! Van and the Arminians (Baptist Division) has spoken.

The "it means individuals were chosen before creation" view is impossible

I know, your doctrine says so. But that's still what the Bible says, deny it all you like.

 

[squint]

ALL mankind are Gods offspring.

Paul also taught in Romans 11 that ALL OF ISRAEL shall be saved, even the (past tense) MADE ENEMIES of the Gospel.

All of Israel are taught that they are Gods children in Deut. 14:1, Psalm 82:6, believer or UNbeliever.

 

[Jipsah]

I have demonstrated that RT is an horrendous doctrine

Since Baptists don't believe it. Gotcha.

robbing Christ of His compassion for the lost.

Let's see now. If sinners will not save themselves, and Christ intervenes to same then anyway, then Christ is not compassionate. I don't think that's official Baptist logic, but it is, apparently, Van's.

Van the verses you cite do not say what you say they say.

Which is, of course, sufficient. The verse says what they say, of course. They don't now, however, "mean" what you say they "mean", the meanings you ascribe to them having nothing whatsoever to do wuth what they actually say. We've been over that, repeatedly.

Pay no attention to

...the man behind the curtain.

Here is RT in a nutshell, you were either saved or damned from all eternity, for all eternity, and nothing you do during your life will alter that outcome for yourelf or for your loved ones.

Nothing you will do, unless God changes your heart. That's right. If God doesn't intervene to save you, you not only won't be saved, you won't want to be saved.

It's a false doctrine.

Nah, it's the "we saved ourselves, but we do want to thank God for having made it possible" doctrine that's baloney. Yeah, I know, everybody wants to think they've saved themselves, and the RT doctrine doesn't allow for the exaltation of the holy *I*, but that's how it is.

Whoever believes in Him shall not perish

Amen. And if whosoever won't...?

[quote[ God has not foreordained who is able to believe [/quote] Even though the BIble says that God has chosen us from before the foundation of the world. Just deny that statement and go on, right?

 

[Jipsah]

Lets return to the topic, the horrendous doctine.

You mean the specious doctrine that alleges that man saves himself through his own virtue and his own sagacity, or perhaps through his own good luck, and that God is simply a passive observer? That horrendous, false, nasty, human-centered doctrine?

Is salvation available to all who receive the gospel? Not according to the horrendous doctrine.

Depends on what you mean by "receive". If it means "hear", then I doubt that even your sect believes the claim to be true.

Does God credit our faith in Christ as righteousness? Not according to the horrendous doctrine.

A falsehood. We simply attribute the faith properly, as the result of God quickening our hearts, and not, as y'all do, as the result of individual virtue. All our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Does God choose believers, who love God and are rich in faith? Not according to the horrendous doctrine.

God chooses who He wills, Van. He doesn't have to follow the criteria you've set for Him.

The horrendous doctrine robs Christ of His compassion for the lost for His love is limited to the lost sheep of Israel.

At this point I have no earthly idea what you're babbling about.

But I have good news. The horrendous doctrine is unbiblical.

Based on your rather creative "interpretations" of what the Bible "means", which involved attributing "meanings" to some Scriptures that wuold have startled and amazed the writers, and directly contradicting others. But if that's the only way you can keep the Bible from contradicting your doctrine, then I reckon you have to do it.