One horrendous doctrine

[Van]

Hi Jipsah, you have just demonstrated you have no clue as to the meaning of an "against the man" argument.

According to Jipsah, the above is not an ad homenim argument, but according to me, since it addresses the knowledge of Jipsah, it is an argument against the man, an ad homenim. Folks, note the effort to side-track the thread into a discussion of the meaning of words and phrases, rather than discussion of the topic. That is evasion. And note that while I say God saves us, Jipsah says my position is that we save ourselves, which is distortion. Therefore post #37 again illustrates how RT is defended on this forum, by evasion, distortion and ad homenims.

 

[Van]

Hi Yekcidmij, what qualifies as half-hearted faith, you ask. If we still treasure the things of this world, as well as Christ, rather than Christ alone, our faith is "half-hearted" or more accurately not full blown. The rich young ruler who could not sell his possessions had "half-hearted" faith in Christ. But that faith was not credited as righteousness by God. Jesus teaches this truth also in Matthew 13:20-22.

The idea of believe from the heart, simply refers to a full blown or complete committment, for we must love God with all our mind and with all our heart.

And finally, what happens if a person, who at one time had declared he was committed to Christ, now, subsequently decides he does not. John tells us they went out from us because they we not of us. The idea here is that they were tares, not born again believers, God had not accepted their half-hearted faith, hence they were NEVER saved. If they had been born again and therefore "of us" they would never have lost their heart-felt love and devotion to Christ.

Hope some of this helps. God bless

 

[IamAdopted]

Hi Yekcidmij, what qualifies as half-hearted faith, you ask. If we still treasure the things of this world, as well as Christ, rather than Christ alone, our faith is "half-hearted" or more accurately not full blown. The rich young ruler who could not sell his possessions had "half-hearted" faith in Christ. But that faith was not credited as righteousness by God. Jesus teaches this truth also in Matthew 13:20-22.

Actually scripture does not say it is half hearted faith..
1Jn 2:15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

 

[IamAdopted]

The rich young ruler who could not sell his possessions had "half-hearted" faith in Christ. But that faith was not credited as righteousness by God. Jesus teaches this truth also in Matthew 13:20-22.

Actually what happened here is that this young rich ruler wanted to know how to be saved. He had pride.. For Jesus said do this and do that and the man answered Him that he had done all these things thinking that he had arrived until Jesus said go and sell all you have then he walked away for he was not willing to loose his life to save his life as Jesus tells us we must do..

 

[Van]

The "T" in the TULIP of 5 point Calvinism stands for "Total Spiritual Inability." Thus a person who has not been altered by "Irresistible Grace" cannot seek God or place their faith in God, according to the false doctrine. However, Matthew 23:13 describes folks who were entering the kingdom, and therefore had sought God and put their faith in God to a degree, the text does not tell us whether it was full blown or not, yet false teachers presenting false doctrine prevented the folks from entering. Had they been altered by "Irresistible grace" they would not have been blocked from entry, so the only view allowed is that "Total Spiritual Inability" is a false doctrine, for they were entering the kingdom!

Next, the Calvinists that post here provide conflicting views on free will, but it boils down to (according to their false doctrine) we are free to choose to reject God but cannot accept God. They define being free as picking the only path available. Scripture says God sets before us a choice between life and death, but RT revises it to say God sets the "choice" of death only before some, and the "choice" of life only before the others, the elect.

Hope some of this helps. God bless

 

[Van]

Thanks, I am adopted, your citation of 1 John 2:15 makes my point beautifully. And the rich young ruler, who was unwilling to sell his possessions still loved the world, didn't he, otherwise, the possessions would have meant nothing to him. He wanted to be saved, if the price was not too high

 

[IamAdopted]

Thanks, I am adopted, your citation of 1 John 2:15 makes my point beautifully. And the rich young ruler, who was unwilling to sell his possessions still loved the world, didn't he, otherwise, the possessions would have meant nothing to him. He wanted to be saved, if the price was not too high

And I guess He couldn't be saved because why? Did God call him and predestine him? Now if He had been predestined and called he probably would have accepted everything Christ said and did what He told Him to do. We see that Here sits these fishermen.. Jesus comes up to them and says follow me.. They Do.. Why?

 

[Jipsah]

One of the points of calvanism says man cannot choose anything good

I'd say "will not" rather than "cannot", but the net effect is the same.

so God must intervene in order for us to do good.

Yep.

It is said that man is sinful by nature to the point where he is incapable of choosing good without God's help. Do I have it strait?

Yep, that's about it.

My other question is, does Calvanism allow for free will at all?

Sure. If we didn't have free will we wouldn't sin.

 

[Van]

Hi IamAdopted.

Scripture does not say the rich young ruler could not have been saved. All things are possible with God.

Did God call him, the rich young ruler? Yes. Did he receive the gospel to a degree? Yes. Was his faith accepted? No. Therefore he was never placed in Christ, never called out of darkness and into Christ, and so he was never predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, nor be resurrected in a glorified body. He never became an heir, for he never was born again as a child of God.

The reason others did follow Christ is given in scripture. The fishermen left everythings possessions and relationships. They worshipped God and were seeking His Messiah.

 

[Jipsah]

Hi Jipsah, you have just demonstrated you have no clue as to the meaning of an "against the man" argument.

I know what it means in your curious vernaculr, Van. It means "an argument that I'd rather not hear".

Jipsah says my position is that we save ourselves, which is distortion.

Nope, that's what you say. It's out faith that saves us, says you. If you have sufficient faith, God will reward you with salvation. That's what you've said, again and again and again. Why try and crawfish on it now?

Therefore post #37 again illustrates how RT is defended on this forum, by evasion, distortion and ad homenims.

You're throwing dust in the air again, Van, but it's no use. You're stuck with your position, that salvation is a reward for our faith, faith that we can gen up ourselves because we're aren't really depraved. God is the paymaster, but the work is ours.
That's your position, just expressed in plainer terms than you'd like.

 

[Jipsah]

The "T" in the TULIP of 5 point Calvinism stands for "Total Spiritual Inability." Thus a person who has not been altered by "Irresistible Grace" cannot seek God or place their faith in God, according to the false doctrine.

Ah, but y'all know that there's enough good in us to effect our own salvation, right?

Next, the Calvinists that post here provide conflicting views on free will, but it boils down to (according to their false doctrine) we are free to choose to reject God but cannot accept God.

"Won't" is more accurate than "can't", but the effect is the same either way.

They define being free as picking the only path available.

Not true. You could be free from sin in you wanted to, as you're perfectly free to forbear from sinning. But you won't. That's true for all of us.

Scripture says God sets before us a choice between life and death , but RT revises it to say God sets the "choice" of death

Nope, wrong again. The problem is that God has given us the choice between life and death, and because of our depravity we choose death. No call blaming God for a jam we've gotten ourselves into.

only before some, and the "choice" of life only before the others, the elect.

Nah, untrue again. All have the choice. The advantage of the elect is that God has created in them the desire for life.

Hope some of this helps.

If he was in need of bad information then I'm sure it will.

 

[nobdysfool]

The "T" in the TULIP of 5 point Calvinism stands for "Total Spiritual Inability." Thus a person who has not been altered by "Irresistible Grace" cannot seek God or place their faith in God, according to the false doctrine.

Actually, the doctrine is Total Depravity, and it states that men are so corrupt that they will not choose God freely. Jipsah correctly stated that this translates into "won't", not "can't". As I have pointed out before, TULIP is derived from the Canons of the Synod of Dordt, and Reformed Theology is based on these Canons as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith.

However, Matthew 23:13 describes folks who were entering the kingdom, and therefore had sought God and put their faith in God to a degree, the text does not tell us whether it was full blown or not, yet false teachers presenting false doctrine prevented the folks from entering. Had they been altered by "Irresistible grace" they would not have been blocked from entry, so the only view allowed is that "Total Spiritual Inability" is a false doctrine, for they were entering the kingdom!

This is just a restatement of Ben johnson's false doctrines, which completely misinterprets Jesus' statement in His scathing denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees. If this were a true view, then one would have to conclude that mere men can thwart forever the Will of God, and that God is powerless to save someone if someone else interferes. I would hope that the reader would realize that this cannot be true.

Next, the Calvinists that post here provide conflicting views on free will, but it boils down to (according to their false doctrine) we are free to choose to reject God but cannot accept God.

A false statement, based on a willful ignorance of what RT actually teaches, which is that men will not freely choose God apart from Grace, because they have no desire to do so. Again, as Jipsah correctly stated, it is a matter of "won't", not "can't". The result is the same, but the path to it is different.

Understanding this correctly will knock the legs out from under van's argument, so he tries to claim that he and he alone knows what RT truly teaches, and RT believers are liars, deceivers, and whatever other unChristian falsehoods he can dream up. His actions are those of desperation, not doctrinal purity or love of Truth.

They define being free as picking the only path available.

A complete and utter lie. RT/Calvinism teaches no such thing. Men freely chose according to their desires, and it is only those whom God has monergistically changed their desires that will freely choose Christ. To Van, this means that God is up to no good, because He doesn't reveal "why" He has chosen as He has chosen.

Scripture says God sets before us a choice between life and death, but RT revises it to say God sets the "choice" of death only before some, and the "choice" of life only before the others, the elect.

Elsewhere Van has been forced to admit that God has not set the choice between life and death before all men without exception. This stands in direct contradiction to what he has just said, and undercuts his false doctrines. His basis for this false idea is from the OT, where God set the choice before Israel, and Israel alone. A little thought will show that God dealt only with Israel in the OT, not all men without exception, and even under the New Covenant, not all men have had this choice placed before them, so to say that they have been given this choice is a lie. Understanding that salvation is not a matter of man's choice renders this false doctrine of no account.

Hope some of this helps. God bless

I hope that showing how van has distorted and twisted the Word of God to wrong conclusions, and untenable positions, will help lay to rest his false doctrines, and encourage the readers to study the word to see if these things be so, and not be swayed by the grandstanding, lies, distortions, twisting of scripture, etc.

 

[nobdysfool]

Jipsah says my position is that we save ourselves, which is distortion.

This from the man who claims he has never accused anyone of distortion....

 

[nobdysfool]

The reason others did follow Christ is given in scripture. The fishermen left everythings possessions and relationships. They worshipped God and were seeking His Messiah.

Actually, they were fishing....

Unless you want to say that fishing is worshiping God and seeking His Messiah....

by that reasoning, Golf is also worshiping God....

 

[Van]

Folks, note the effort to draw distinctions with a difference to evade the fact that I accurately presented the false doctrines of Calvinism. We have the ol name change, its not Total Spiritual Inability, its Total Depravity which means Total Spiritual inability.

The RT doctrine is inability, not ability. Evasions and distortions are the sum and substance of the defense.
The RT doctrine is that the result of the Fall corrupted mankind such that in our natural unregenerated state, we do not have the ability to seek God or put our faith in God. Total Spiritual Inability.

"
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; 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 ]

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the RT defenders deny their own doctrines to hide the horrendous nature of their false doctrines. They say, that fallen man has no ability to choose life, yet is free to choose life, 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

Matthew 23:13 demonstrates that Total Spiritual Inability is a false doctrine. Unregenerate folks received the gospel and were entering the kingdom, therefore they were seeking God and believing in God. And their unregenerate effort was sufficient for they were entering until they were shutoff by the false doctrines of men. This verse demonstrates that Total Spiritual inability and irresistible grace are false doctrines.

 

[Van]

Folks, pay no attention to what NBF says I have said or what he says is my position, unless he provides a quote.

 

[cygnusx1]

And I guess He couldn't be saved because why? Did God call him and predestine him? Now if He had been predestined and called he probably would have accepted everything Christ said and did what He told Him to do. We see that Here sits these fishermen.. Jesus comes up to them and says follow me.. They Do.. Why?

yes sister , that always struck me as profound , there was no debate , no interaction , simply the command from God and men simply obeyed ... just like Lazarus , life from the dead !

 

[Jipsah]

The RT doctrine that teach salvation is not actually available to mankind

Another willful misrepresentation. It's available, it's just that we, unless regenerated by God, won't do anything about it. We've been over that, haven't we?

, but only to supposedly pre-selected individuals

That's what the Bible says, Van, despite your best efforts to have it "mean" something other than what it says. Let's look at it again, shall we?

Ephesians 1

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen usin him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Who has He chosen? Us. Who has He predestined? Us. Who has He made accepted? Us. That's what it says, Van. No way to wiggle around it, or at least no honest way.

[quote] chosen before creation is one horrendous doctrine! [/quote] When you get to Heaven you can take St. Paul to task for putting it in the Bible, then.

 

[Van]

The RT doctrine says not that we are able but won't choose, rather the RT doctrine is we are unable and therefore won't choose.

And again Ephesians 1:4 does not suggest in the slightest that people were chosen individually, only that we were chosen IN HIM, which means He was chosen before the foundation of the world to be the Redeemer, and therefore when we are chosen during our lives and places spiritually in HIM, we share in HIS election, hence we were chosen IN HIM before the foundation of the world. The "it means individuals were chosen before creation" view is impossible in light of 1 Peter 2:9-10, for that passage says we were chosen individually after we had lived without mercy, we means after we were conceived, i.e. during our physical lifetime. It is a lock, there is no way to wiggle out of it.

 

[nobdysfool]

So, that's the way it is, because Van says so.

The problem is, many of the verses that van cites as "proof" do not say what he tries to tell people they say. And he gets real prickly when anyone challenges him about them, and then the ad homs come out. Ad homs against Calvinists, and Calvinism, statements without proof, vilification without reason, Grandstanding and all sorts of unchristian-like behavior. We have caught him in lies and falsehoods, saying one thing and then another, and he remains unrepentant for the lies, and for the false charges, and hatred directed toward the brethren.

Is this an ad hom? You bet!. I'm taking this thing to the man, because the man is not displaying a Christ-like spirit. He would find that it would be much easier to discuss these things, if he would stop insulting, vilifying, and disparaging Calvinists with every post. The problem is, he wants his every post to be the last word on whatever that post is about, and attacks anyone who questions his conclusions. That attitude stops substantive discussion cold.

Quite frankly Van, your attitude, condescension, and actions speak so loudly, I can't hear a thing you say. If you attack us, we have a right, and duty to defend ourselves. Apparently you don't like to have your views questioned. Tough! It will be questioned , and it will be defeated, because it is wrong.