One horrendous doctrine

[Van]

The fall supposed caused the loss of all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation. Therefore a person will not place their faith in Christ because they have no ability to place their faith in Christ. They won't because they can't. Thus if offered a choice between life and death, they cannot choose life for that would be doing good accompanying salvation. So at the end of the day, according to the false doctrine, death is the only "choice" available for the unregenerate, those not yet born again. But that doctrine is false and horrendous. And it turns choice into non-choice, making scripture to no effect.

Nothing hinders the unregenerate but their own unwillingness, but their own unwillingness according to Total Spiritual Inability, is because they are unable to will to be saved. But Romans 9:16 says it does not depend on the man that wills. Why would Paul say that if a man could not will to be saved? He wouldn't so the doctrine is demonstrated false yet again, in scripture after scripture after scripture, Matthew 13:20-22, Matthew 23:13, Romans 9:16, and Romans 9:30 which says the some Gentiles attained the righteousness of God which is by faith. Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace through faith, and Romans 5:2 says our faith provides our access to God's grace. Faith before regeneration is the biblical doctrine and even Spurgeon appanently agrees.

 

[squint]

Leviticus 19:14
Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Both "freewillers" and "determinists" blame only the blind, and ignore both the cause of blindness, and He who is Far Greater than the cause of blindness who is ABLE to save them.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=27&verse=18&version=31&context=verse

 

[Jipsah]

They won't because they can't.

Yep, corrupted will. We won't. Don't want to, not having any of it, take it away. Whosever won't. Need proof? Try to stop sinning and see how long you manage to do it.

Thus if offered a choice between life and death, they cannot choose life

Won't, Van. Won't. Will not.

death is the only "choice" available for the unregenerate

The only one they'll make, yeah. Sorry 'bout that, hoss. Nobody choose salvation through their own cleverness or virtue. If God doesn't save you, you're toast. The I's don't have it.

But that doctrine is false and horrendous.

I mean, yeah, it's like we're totally dependent on God, and can't do anything ourselves. I mean, that's so yucky!

Nothing hinders the unregenerate but their own unwillingness

Yep.

But Romans 9:16 says it does not depend on the man that wills.

Right. It depends on God saving us. Thanks for your support.

Why would Paul say that if a man could not will to be saved?

Think about that for a minute, Van, and maybe it'll come to you. But thanks for choosing that Scripture. It's all about God choosing. Here's what it says (all emphasis mine)

Romans 9

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Funny you should try to defend the spurious doctrine where we choose God, from a chapter tha deals with God doing the choosing. Funny that you should choose a verse that explicitly says that it is not about our will, or our works, but on God Who shows mercy. Just precisely what we've been saying all along, and what you've striven so consistently to deny. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Van]

Jipsah, your position is untenable, they won't because they can't, and if they can't then they won't. Therefore there is no choice presented, only death is available - they will not choose life because they cannot choose life. That is you doctrine. And it is horrendous.

Horrendous and false. RT says a person will not will to be saved, yet Paul says a person can will to be saved, but salvation does not depend upon the man that wills to be saved. Therefore this verse, Romans 9:16 demonstrates Total Spiritual Inability is false, just like Matthew 23:13, and Matthew 13:20-22.

 

[cygnusx1]

Romans 9

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

[nobdysfool]

What is horrendous here is the blatant disregard for civility and respect of others.

 

[cygnusx1]

What is horrendous here is the blatant disregard for civility and respect of others.

yes , it is written "know them by their fruits " the fruit of the Spirit is ................

 

[Van]

Calvinism is a horrendous doctrine and a false doctrine. Therefore because of love for the brethren, the false doctrine should be exposed and rooted out. For babes in Christ, false doctrine hinders spiritual growth. It poisons the nurishment of the Word, including the truths discerned with the light provided by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are to live by the word, not the world's value system, for two wrongs do not make a right, and truth is not served by evasion, distortion, or a lack of clarity.

Nothing hinders the unregenerate but their own unwillingness, but their own unwillingness according to the false doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability, is because they are unable to will to be saved. True for some men but not for all men. Romans 9:16 says it does not depend on the man that wills. Why would Paul say that if all man could not will to be saved? He wouldn't so the doctrine is demonstrated false yet again, in scripture after scripture after scripture, Matthew 13:20-22, Matthew 23:13, Romans 9:16, and Romans 9:30 which says the some Gentiles attained the righteousness of God which is by faith. Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace through faith, and Romans 5:2 says our faith provides our access to God's grace. Faith before regeneration is the biblical doctrine and even Spurgeon apparently agrees.

 

[Jipsah]

Calvinism is a horrendous doctrine and a false doctrine.

Yeah, you've said that before. Unfortunately, in order to attack it you feel the need to ignore what some Scriptures plainly say, take others and attribute to them "meanings" that are 180 degrees from what they actually say, and give others meanings that have nothing whatsoever to do with what they actually say. You're having to batter the Scripture to try and force it into line with your doctrine, which is the direct opposite of what you ought to be doing.

But yeah, your opinion of Calvinism is duly noted.

We are to live by the word

And if the Word doesn't say what you want it to, just give it a "meaning" or "interpretation" that suits you better.

Nothing hinders the unregenerate but their own unwillingness

Hey, you got that one!

But Romans 9:16 says it does not depend on the man that wills.

Yep, it says it all depends on God, which is precisely what we say. Thanks again.

[quotye] Faith before regeneration is the biblical doctrine [/quote] Nah, not a bit of it.

and even Spurgeon apparently agrees.

Then he was wrong, wasn't he? Or is he considered infallible in your sect?

 

[nobdysfool]

Calvinism is a horrendous doctrine and a false doctrine. Therefore because of love for the brethren, the false doctrine should be exposed and rooted out. For babes in Christ, false doctrine hinders spiritual growth. It poisons the nurishment of the Word, including the truths discerned with the light provided by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are to live by the word, not the world's value system, for two wrongs do not make a right, and truth is not served by evasion, distortion, or a lack of clarity.

Nothing hinders the unregenerate but their own unwillingness, but their own unwillingness according to the false doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability, is because they are unable to will to be saved. True for some men but not for all men. Romans 9:16 says it does not depend on the man that wills. Why would Paul say that if all man could not will to be saved? He wouldn't so the doctrine is demonstrated false yet again, in scripture after scripture after scripture, Matthew 13:20-22, Matthew 23:13, Romans 9:16, and Romans 9:30 which says the some Gentiles attained the righteousness of God which is by faith. Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace through faith, and Romans 5:2 says our faith provides our access to God's grace. Faith before regeneration is the biblical doctrine and even Spurgeon apparently agrees.

Nothing but repetition of the same tired points that have been belabored and shown to be wrong. I think we all know what it is called when one does the same thing over and over, expecting a different result from the one coming back.

Simple repetition of the same things over and over again, citing scripture without properly showing how they support the assertions made, does not constitute proof. When these verses are examined, they don't say what is claimed, in fact they either don't address the claim at all, or they say the opposite. The vitriol with which these flaws in reasoning and biblical interpretation are met is evidence of a serious problem.

We will yet again address these verses, and show how their misinterpretation leads to the false doctrines being promoted here as the "answer" to Calvinism, which is NOT a "horrendous doctrine" as is being falsely claimed.

 

[Van]

Nothing but repetition of the same tired points that have been belabored and shown to be wrong. I think we all know what it is called when one does the same thing over and over, expecting a different result from the one coming back.

Simple repetition of the same things over and over again, citing scripture without properly showing how they support the assertions made, does not constitute proof. When these verses are examined, they don't say what is claimed, in fact they either don't address the claim at all, or they say the opposite. The vitriol with which these flaws in reasoning and biblical interpretation are met is evidence of a serious problem.

We will yet again address these verses, and show how their misinterpretation leads to the false doctrines being promoted here as the "answer" to Calvinism, which is NOT a "horrendous doctrine" as is being falsely claimed.

Saying something has been accomplished in the past but not providing a reference carries very little weight.

Implying that a person who stands firm against false doctrines by citing the sciptures which demonstrate the doctrine is false, is crazy, is simply an ad homenim, a logical fallacy which carries no weight.

Now I am charged with not "properly showing" that scripture demonstrates 4 of the 5 points of the TULIP are unbiblical! I referenced the scriptures, I provided my view of the author's intended meaning, and I left it to the reader to judge for himself or herself. That seems the proper approach to me.

The general statement, the verses I cited do not say what I believe, without specifics is simply asserting the position of one side of the debate is correct, with providing the support, and therefore carries little weight.

Next, I am charged with being a serious problem because of the response of those who believe Calvinism is correct. If the expression of alternate views of biblical doctrine can be blocked by reacting with emotion, then why did the disciples continue to speak the truth in the face of angry groups? We are to be civil and kind and gentle. And not return in kind the abuse of others.
God help me, that is my goal.

There is no need to call the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism horrendous, if horrendous seems like a red flag. How about offensive, since the doctrine is offensive to many people?

Nothing hinders the unregenerate but their own unwillingness, but their own unwillingness according to the false doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability, is because they are unable to will to be saved. True for some men but not for all men. Romans 9:16 says it does not depend on the man that wills. Why would Paul say that if no one could will to be saved? He wouldn't! And this truth, that some mean do will to be saved is demonstrated in the following passages: Matthew 13:20-22, Matthew 23:13, Romans 9:16, and Romans 9:30 which says the some Gentiles attained the righteousness of God which is by faith.

 

[nobdysfool]

There is no need to call the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism horrendous, if horrendous seems like a red flag. How about offensive, since the doctrine is offensive to many people?

How about doing two things: go back and edit your posts wherein you called the doctrine 'horrendous", and dropping the negative pejorative terms altogether? If you want peace, then stop using such terms. As you say, there is no need, yet you still use them.

We all know you oppose Calvinism. You can do so without the negative terms, the negative flames, etc. You don't have to continually remind us. It's like rubbing salt into a wound. It incites anger, strife, and hard feelings, which do not advance your view, or lend it any more credence.

If you are truly interested in peace in here, then set the example. Respect begets respect.

 

[squint]

How about doing two things: go back and edit your posts wherein you called the doctrine 'horrendous", and dropping the negative pejorative terms altogether? If you want peace, then stop using such terms. As you say, there is no need, yet you still use them.

We all know you oppose Calvinism. You can do so without the negative terms, the negative flames, etc. You don't have to continually remind us. It's like rubbing salt into a wound. It incites anger, strife, and hard feelings, which do not advance your view, or lend it any more credence.

If you are truly interested in peace in here, then set the example. Respect begets respect.

Freewillers at least give their "fellow man" a remote "shot" at saving themselves.

Determinists on the other hand present to the world that the only shot they have is a predetermined position of eternal torture in fire, and they do so without remorse. Too bad, so sad.

And then they cry for civility on top of that? lol

Perhaps you should apply your own positions to your own loved ones. I have seen the hardest hearts in "determinism." Even if their own loved ones are sentenced to fry alive forever, OH WELL, that's PREDETERMINED and they are and remain WITHOUT hope.

squint

 

[Van]

Calvinism is an offensive doctrine to many who believe in Christ. It is offensive and false. Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where individuals were entering the kingdom. To be entering, they had to know about the kingdom and to desire to enter the kingdom. Thus in their unregenerate state, they were able to believe in God and believe God rewards those who seek Him. They had heard from the Father. But before they had actually entered, they were turned aside, led astray, by false teachings.

Unconditional Election is demonstrated false by James 2:5 which indicates God chooses folks who are poor, who are rich in faith, and who love God. Because several well accepted translations insert the words, "to be" into the text, the doctrine is not clearly presented. But in the NASB, "to be" is in italics, indicating the words were added by the translators, and in the YLT the words do not appear. How are we chosen? When we are set apart (sanctified) by being placed spiritually into Christ. When are we chosen, after we have lived without mercy, i.e during our physical lives. 1 Corinthians 1:26-30 also indicates God choose individuals during their lives to shame the rich and powerful and well born. So His purpose, at least in part, is disclosed and therefore His election is conditional, people with characteristics suitable for His purposes.

Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is a false doctrine and is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2 which says Christ is not only our propitiation, but the propitation for the whole world.

And Irresistible Grace is a false doctrine and is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 which indicates that people who were entering the kingdom were turned aside by false teachings.

Taken together, such an unbiblical scheme is very offensive to those who accept what the bible actually says.

 

[Reformationist]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family. The story is that before he created the human family God chose some to enjoy eternal life with him and the rest he consigned to eternal torture. Some of these teachers are bolder than others and without apology they insist that not only did God foreordain the saved to be saved (independent of anything God foresaw in them) he also foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them). Others who sense the horror of such a view try to ease the situation by saying that God chose some and "simply passed by" the rest.

One of the worst faces of anthropocentric Christianity is its insistance that the love of God could be issued but still not overcome the obstinance of the creation and not rescue them from eternal damnation. This, of course, relies exclusively on the idea that man decides his own destiny, for he must have been created for his own purposes. Such a sad view of God. The very idea that God expresses His love for each and every created human and His love is impotent in the face of their resistance. This is the heinous view of man's sovereignty. Without realizing, or maybe they do, those who contend such blasphemous tripe see man as the ultimate determiner of history and God merely some pathetic observer of history. We who trust in the power and majesty and sovereignty of an eternal God recognize that the Bible, thankfully, reveals a completely different God. The God of Scripture reveals Himself, time and time again, to be a God of providence, never failing to achieve His purposes in all that He intends.

Hard-line Calvinist, John Piper (rightly in my view), thinks that lacks consistency and follows John Calvin who made no bones about it: he said God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture. (He admitted it was a horrible decree but thought if the Bible taught it he should go along with it.)

Please cite where either John Piper or John Calvin ever stated that anyone who dies in infancy are consigned to eternal torture. If you can't, please be man enough to remove this accusation from your post.

Many of us take 1 John 2:2 at face value and think that Christ died to deal with the sins of the entire human family (even John Calvin believed that) but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world. They limit the love of God to the relatively few he chose.

Um...as the Word is explicit that God never fails to achieve His purposes and that all that He sets His mind to will be done, in what way was Christ intending to "deal with the sins" of those who ultimately go to hell?

 

[beloved57]

squint says:

Freewillers at least give their "fellow man" a remote "shot" at saving themselves.

This is one of the most God and christ dishonouring and repulsive statement a man can make about salvation, and yet this monstrous statement goes un rebuked by those who claim to Love Jesus Christ...

The post is a open public blasphemy against God and christ.

 

[Reformationist]

squint says:



This is one of the most God and christ dishonouring and repulsive statement a man can make about salvation, and yet this monstrous statement goes un rebuked by those who claim to Love Jesus Christ...

The post is a open public blasphemy against God and christ.

That's the saddest part. They say stuff like this and act as if it is neither unscriptural nor incriminating. Talk about "horrendous doctrine." I had only read the OP but, you're right, that is vile stuff.

God bless

 

[squint]

squint says:



This is one of the most God and christ dishonouring and repulsive statement a man can make about salvation, and yet this monstrous statement goes un rebuked by those who claim to Love Jesus Christ...

The post is a open public blasphemy against God and christ.

That? From a Determinist?

What makes you the arbiter of such things?

Determinists openly and proudly state that "most" of mankind are PREDETERMINED to be burned alive forever, and then take offense when their "determinations" of Divine Sovereignty are "questioned."

I am not a "freewiller." I am not a "determinist."

I believe that Jesus Is who He said He Is, the Saviour of the world. So in that way I am a Divine Determinist believer. I believe that Christ is a "successful" Determinist for ALL MANKIND and not some miserable failure who must rely on some "man" to validate Him and His working, or on some "determinist" that says He is not what He says He Is.

How's that?

squint

 

[Reformationist]

Determinists openly and proudly state that "most" of mankind are PREDETERMINED to be burned alive forever, and then take offense when their "determinations" of Divine Sovereignty are "questioned."

Please cite your source for this claim. I am a reformed Christian, someone you'd surely call a "determinist," and no scholar that I respect or brother/sister whose understanding I give credence to claims to have any idea who has been predetermined to hell, much less that "most of mankind" are.

I believe that Jesus Is who He said He Is, the Saviour of the world.

Do you qualify that or do you simply submit that Christ saves all of mankind?

How's that?

That still remains to be seen.

I look forward to your response.

God bless

 

[squint]

Please cite your source for this claim.

This may be rather easy.

Has God made (we'll leave the percentages undefined) people only to burn them alive forever (or insert whatever form of annihilation/eternal separation/or any other form of eternal punishment you want to tag it)?

I am a reformed Christian, someone you'd surely call a "determinist," and no scholar that I respect or brother/sister whose understanding I give credence to claims to have any idea who has been predetermined to hell, much less that "most of mankind" are.

As a determinist who believes that "some people" will be burned alive forever as "such" they were "predetermined" to this fate, correct?

Do you qualify that or do you simply submit that Christ saves all of mankind?

I also believe in every eternal damnation/torment scripture as being unto Satan and his messengers who were "openly disclosed" to reside in the flesh of mankind, who were SEPARATED from mankind's flesh by Jesus, and also spoken to in the FLESH of mankind. So there is where I divide these "scriptures" and YES, I do believe in Eternal Hell in the Lake of Fire. I do find it rather unlikely however that God is going to render that fate to His "offspring" whom all of mankind are. (Acts 17:23-29)

The Gospel IS Good News to mankind. Bad news for devilkind. I do not have to "mix" these two positions.

enjoy!

squint