One horrendous doctrine

[Reformationist]

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)?

It apparently isn't that easy, as I asked you to simply cite your source for your own claim that "Determinists openly and proudly state that most of mankind are predetermined to be burned alive forever." Can you do that or not? If not, acknowledge that you made an unsupportable claim and then go change it. It's not that difficult.

And in answer to your question, no, God did not create anyone just so that He could have someone to burn forever, or whatever form of eternal punishment you wish to ask about.

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

I do not know who is eternally condemned so your repeated attempts to pin it down to a certain number, even a general qualification, are inappropriate. Additionally, I would not use the phrase "burned alive forever" as I don't think it makes any sense, nor am I sufficiently well versed in the passages that deal with what awaits those who have earned, and receive, condemnation for their sins to make a judgement on that.

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)

Okay, so, your position is that all "devilkind" will inherit/have inherited eternal damnation/torment in the Lake of Fire and all of mankind will inherit the promises of the Gospel, since all are the offspring of God? Is that an accurate summation of your position?

The Gospel IS Good News to mankind.

So, when Paul, in 1 Corintians 1:18 stated, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God," the "those who are perishing" are the devilkind and "us who are being saved" is a reference to all mankind?

 

[squint]

It apparently isn't that easy, as I asked you to simply cite your source for your own claim that "Determinists openly and proudly state that most of mankind are predetermined to be burned alive forever." Can you do that or not? If not, acknowledge that you made an unsupportable claim and then go change it. It's not that difficult.

Well, let's get it down to just a single person then Reformationist.

Will God burn alive forever a single named person? Does this make the matter easier for you to admit to?

The "determinist" will openly admit (usually) that the burning of people forever is a fact, but that they do not know "who" that may be so they bow out of admittance. So I simply ask you, WILL THAT HAPPEN? You do not have to attach "a name" if that makes it easier for ya.

And in answer to your question, no, God did not create anyone just so that He could have someone to burn forever, or whatever form of eternal punishment you wish to ask about.

So you would hold out that it is both conceivable and possible that God will indeed SAVE ALL MANKIND? If so, I can hardly term that a "determinist" position.

I do not know who is eternally condemned so your repeated attempts to pin it down to a certain number, even a general qualification, are inappropriate.

That is why I'm removing the number and asking you if there is either ONE or "potentially" NONE? And you know if you say NONE will "potentially" suffer that fate, then you are not in the "determinist camp."

Additionally, I would not use the phrase "burned alive forever" as I don't think it makes any sense, nor am I sufficiently well versed in the passages that deal with what awaits those who have earned, and receive, condemnation for their sins to make a judgement on that.

Hand in hand with "determinism" also comes "limited atonement" and the "counting of sins against mankind."

You "almost" seem to admit that "some people" have "what awaits those who have earned, and receive condemnation for their sins." So what is it?

Okay, so, your position is that all "devilkind" will inherit/have inherited eternal damnation/torment in the Lake of Fire and all of mankind will inherit the promises of the Gospel, since all are the offspring of God? Is that an accurate summation of your position?

Pretty much. Yet I know that in this present life "few" will find the road to life, and sadly MOST within christaindom of any ilk have found the broad path that leads to the destruction of nearly "all" mankind. To me that will remain a sad conclusion and certainly far from Good News to men.

For both determinist and freewill adherent, I posted earlier in this thread that Paul clearly demonstrated the utter futility of BOTH CAMPS when he declared in Romans 11 that ALL OF ISRAEL shall be saved, even those who were "made" (past tense) enemies of the Gospel. That is the great exception to BOTH camps positions and NEITHER CAMP has any answer to that position, seeing as those "made enemies" parted the flesh as ENEMIES of the Gospel.

So I look also to this fact:

-anyone who dies is released from sin." Romans 6:7

So, when Paul, in 1 Corintians 1:18 stated, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God," the "those who are perishing" are the devilkind and "us who are being saved" is a reference to all mankind?

You and I both know that it is the "god of this world" who blinds the minds of the unbelievers.

I am not in the market to condemn the slaves of sins, and overlook the obvious mark of the CAPTORS who Jesus clearly showed were and are in the flesh and heart of mankind.

There is simply MORE going on in the flesh than either camp seem to be able to come to grips with, and instead merely fall into the condemnation of the captives of sin. I do not believe Jesus made that kind of measure to the captives.

enjoy!

squint

 

[nobdysfool]

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

I don't know who you're talking about, but it isn't me. You assume way too much, and apparently know way too little.

Actually, it was Van who offered to eliminate a specific word from the discussion, and I njust encouraged him to take another step and eliminate all inflammatory and insulting language from his posts. Civility would be much preferable to the rancor and flames that have been flying back and forth for some time here. Do you have a problem with that? If so, please enlighten us as to why it would be wrong to try and bring things to a civil level, and stop all the anger and harsh words. It appears Van is willing to do so, and I am as well.

 

[nobdysfool]

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.

Something being offensive doesn't make it false. Christianity is offensive to the unsaved, and to those who are deceived in other religions, like Islam. They may call if false, but does that make it false? No!

Van, your opinion of Calvinism is well known. So why do you continue to attach pejoratives and inflammatory words to every mention of it? Is it really necessary? Does it advance the discussion or does it serve to create a negative emotional response in those who you direct these words against? You will never convince me or any other Calvinist I know that Calvinism is false no matter how many times you call it that or other useless pejoratives. No argument has ever been won by that method. It is not a compelling or convincing argument. If your argument is based on the use of such words then there is logical reason to believe that your argument may not be as sound as you wish it was.

You offered to tone down the rhetoric, and I asked that you consider eliminating it altogether. Which will it be? Was that just words, or will you put actions to it?

 

[nobdysfool]

squint, it is obvious to all here now that you are a Universalist, who believes that all mankind, every man woman and child without exception will be saved, no matter what they have done, or whether they have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ or not. Would that be a correct summation of your view?

If so, then the gospel of Jesus Christ is basically worthless, because all the warnings about falling away, unbelief, sin, and its consequences, are just empty threats, and so much hot air. Logically that is the end point of such doctrine.

You come in here, trying to incite Reformed Christians, non-Reformed and Arminians alike. Perhaps you think that calling us "determinists" will cause us to foam at the mouth with anger, and strike out at you. We won't take the bait. Stop the insulting tirades, and mount a credible defense, if you are able, and we will answer with scripture, and logical reasoning in line with scripture, and prove your view to be wrong.

I think even Van would agree with me on that.

 

[Reformationist]

Well, let's get it down to just a single person then Reformationist.

Or better yet, you acknowledge that you ran off at the mouth about what "determinists" do and then revise your post to reflect your error. How 'bout that squint?

Will God burn alive forever a single named person?

I'm pretty sure that in my previous post I stated that I am not familiar enough with the passages that speak of condemnation to know if it lasts forever.

Does this make the matter easier for you to admit to?

Does my answer make it easier for you to stop projecting your disdain for reformed theology and address things that we are able?

The "determinist" will openly admit (usually) that the burning of people forever is a fact, but that they do not know "who" that may be so they bow out of admittance. So I simply ask you, WILL THAT HAPPEN? You do not have to attach "a name" if that makes it easier for ya.

Again with the generalized comments about "determinsts." What is it with you? Do you presume that one Christian who believes in predestination speaks for all who believe it? Again I ask, cite a determinist that "openly admits that the eternal burning of people is a fact." Otherwise, stop with the incessant generalizations.

So you would hold out that it is both conceivable and possible that God will indeed SAVE ALL MANKIND? If so, I can hardly term that a "determinist" position.

It is God, and God alone, that determines who will receive salvation so it is certainly within His power and authority. Not likely but certainly not outside of His ability. Scripture doesn't support universalvation so I would simply call it for what it is, unbiblical.

Other than that it seems as if you believe everyone, without exception, will be saved, something that is at odds with much of Scripture, I cannot make any sense of the rest of your post. Maybe you could reword if you'd like.

God bless

 

[cygnusx1]

Something being offensive doesn't make it false. Christianity is offensive to the unsaved, and to those who are deceived in other religions, like Islam. They may call if false, but does that make it false? No!

Van, your opinion of Calvinism is well known. So why do you continue to attach pejoratives and inflammatory words to every mention of it? Is it really necessary? Does it advance the discussion or does it serve to create a negative emotional response in those who you direct these words against? You will never convince me or any other Calvinist I know that Calvinism is false no matter how many times you call it that or other useless pejoratives. No argument has ever been won by that method. It is not a compelling or convincing argument. If your argument is based on the use of such words then there is logical reason to believe that your argument may not be as sound as you wish it was.

You offered to tone down the rhetoric, and I asked that you consider eliminating it altogether. Which will it be? Was that just words, or will you put actions to it?

good sound post bro !!!

from my memory all flaming and vilifying of Calvinists only serves one purpose ; getting threads locked!!!

just go back and look ......

 

[cygnusx1]

Or better yet, you acknowledge that you ran off at the mouth about what "determinists" do and then revise your post to reflect your error. How 'bout that squint?



I'm pretty sure that in my previous post I stated that I am not familiar enough with the passages that speak of condemnation to know if it lasts forever.



Does my answer make it easier for you to stop projecting your disdain for reformed theology and address things that we are able?



Again with the generalized comments about "determinsts." What is it with you? Do you presume that one Christian who believes in predestination speaks for all who believe it? Again I ask, cite a determinist that "openly admits that the eternal burning of people is a fact." Otherwise, stop with the incessant generalizations.



It is God, and God alone, that determines who will receive salvation so it is certainly within His power and authority. Not likely but certainly not outside of His ability. Scripture doesn't support universalvation so I would simply call it for what it is, unbiblical.

Other than that it seems as if you believe everyone, without exception, will be saved, something that is at odds with much of Scripture, I cannot make any sense of the rest of your post. Maybe you could reword if you'd like.

God bless

Great to see you posting in soteriology again bro !!!!

 

[squint]

squint, it is obvious to all here now that you are a Universalist, who believes that all mankind, every man woman and child without exception will be saved, no matter what they have done, or whether they have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ or not. Would that be a correct summation of your view?

Where both freewiller and determinist go astray is right here my friend in your statement: "no matter what they have done"

I do not condone sin. I do not condone the devil, his ways, works. What you all fail to deliver the goods on is NOT rendering THAT WORKING in mankind's flesh and that does work IN mankind's flesh. None of you EVER consider that, and you freely and all pardon yourselves "excessively" for that same activity.

That view of NOT bringing the other parties to the table in your "judgments" of the unbeliever is and remains an open shame of negligence.

Every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Is Lord to the Glory of God, and God in Christ will NEVER count sins against mankind, but they WILL be accounted to DEVIL KIND.

We are well advised to not be slaves of that darkness. Freewillers and determinists alike who do not RENDER that other working in mankind and ONLY condemn the slave will remain blind to very simple Gospel facts, and they also make Jesus FAR FAR less than the Saviour of the world that the Apostles knew.

If so, then the gospel of Jesus Christ is basically worthless,

Why is that? Your logic does not follow. Are you saying that LOVING OTHERS as YOURSELF carries NO REWARD??? Pardon me for the big harumph. This is the very BASIS of the Gospel my friend, and you cannot say you love someone out of one side of your mouth, whilst condemning them to eternal torture out of the other. Sorry. Doesn't connect for me. Wonder why? hmmm?

People have said the same things about "unconditional Grace" for hundreds of years. They seem to think that without the threat of eternal torture in fire dangling over their heads that they and others would not serve God. I say such are the servants of fear for their own hides.

because all the warnings about falling away, unbelief, sin, and its consequences, are just empty threats, and so much hot air. Logically that is the end point of such doctrine.

I don't doubt that Satan can take a man who does not love and that man can return in worse shape as a slave of darkness, than he was before knowing he was loved by God.

Neither freewiller or determinist can accept this statement from John The Apostle

1 John 4:7
anyone who loves both knows God and is born of God.

You all have your "salvation filters" screwed down so tight that only you and your few will get through the doors.

You come in here, trying to incite Reformed Christians, non-Reformed and Arminians alike.

There is nothing that I can do that will ever compare to vaunting that God will fry alive my fellow man, so give the whining a fair measure. You simply cannot hate your fellow man any more than that.

Perhaps you think that calling us "determinists" will cause us to foam at the mouth with anger, and strike out at you. We won't take the bait.

You'll never take the bait of LOVE. That would simply be too much. Both sides of your ledgers will simply continue in the typical one sided damnation of their fellow man. Jesus made no such measures, even forgiving the ones who KILLED Him. Take that into your "accounts" and see how you stack up.

Stop the insulting tirades, and mount a credible defense,

I've laid some very serious facts on the table of discussions. Your attempts to spin them some other way is absurdity. Where is your measure of Satans manipulations upon your fellow man. WHY is this not taken into your account? I know why.

if you are able, and we will answer with scripture, and logical reasoning in line with scripture, and prove your view to be wrong.

Then go back to my first response in this thread and have at it. I know my Saviour and His Word intimately well.

I think even Van would agree with me on that.

Argumentum ad populous or numerum is fruitless.

enjoy!

squint

 

[squint]

Or better yet, you acknowledge that you ran off at the mouth about what "determinists" do and then revise your post to reflect your error. How 'bout that squint?

I know the Calvin measures. They speak for themselves. They call Gods offspring TOTALLY DEPRAVED.

I'm pretty sure that in my previous post I stated that I am not familiar enough with the passages that speak of condemnation to know if it lasts forever.

Eternal punishment does last forever. Sin, evil, death and the workers of iniquity will have their lot in the Lake of Fire.

Does my answer make it easier for you to stop projecting your disdain for reformed theology and address things that we are able?

You can dodge your own determinist positions as long as you like. Doesn't bother me one whit.

Again with the generalized comments about "determinsts." What is it with you? Do you presume that one Christian who believes in predestination speaks for all who believe it?

Let's just get real here. Determinists will never let in Hindus, Islamists, Taoists, Buddhists, or any other person who has ever lived that is apart from their filters. How's that? How many do you want to condemn.

Again I ask, cite a determinist that "openly admits that the eternal burning of people is a fact." Otherwise, stop with the incessant generalizations.

The determinist positions are that ALL of mankind are totally depraved, and as such they only deserve eternal torture in fire.

It is God, and God alone, that determines who will receive salvation so it is certainly within His power and authority. Not likely but certainly not outside of His ability. Scripture doesn't support universalvation so I would simply call it for what it is, unbiblical.

I gave you very specific scriptural citings for the fact that unsaved unbelieving Israel will ALL BE SAVED according to Paul in Romans 11. You can deny that the "exception" to the rule of belief is there, but it is writte just as plain as day that ENEMIES of the Gospel shall be ALL saved as it pertains to Israel's people who are LOVED. Start your exceptions to the filters of salvation right there.

Other than that it seems as if you believe everyone, without exception, will be saved, something that is at odds with much of Scripture, I cannot make any sense of the rest of your post. Maybe you could reword if you'd like.

The fact of the matter will remain that there is not one single named person in the entire Bible who is said to be headed to the Lake of Fire. Not a one. And there is not one named person even threatened with such a fate. Yet y'all will swear it's Gospel, and deny that Jesus does save the WHOLE WORLD just as He presented.

Now just where do you think you lost the basics here Reformationist? Why can't you render the workings of the devil in the flesh of mankind, and actually LOVE your fellow man as yourself...???

go figure.

enjoy!

squint

 

[nobdysfool]

Let's just get real here. Determinists will never let in Hindus, Islamists, Taoists, Buddhists, or any other person who has ever lived that is apart from their filters. How's that? How many do you want to condemn.

What did Jesus mean when he said, "I am the Way the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me."?

Jesus Himself eliminated Hinduism, Islamists, Taoists, Buddhists, and all who do not follow Him. I do not condemn them, Reformed Theology does not condemn them, Jesus will. He will call out from them as many as He determines to save, and those whom He calls will become Christians. The rest will perish in their sins, and be judged for their sins.

It's not a matter of any of us putting "filters"on anything. It's a matter of accepting what the Word of God says, as it is said, and not going beyond it.

We are commanded to love all men. True Calvinists and Reformed Brethren do as God has commanded. Some of the greatest Evangelistic efforts are Reformed. Your charges against who you falsely label as "Determinists" are nothing more than hot air, a straw man you make show of knocking down time and again, making noise about what you label as wrong. you're not even hitting the target, let alone making any charges that will stick.

The determinist positions are that ALL of mankind are totally depraved, and as such they only deserve eternal torture in fire.

Sorry to pop your bubble, but that is precisely what the Word of God teaches. All have been shut up in sin. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, There is none righteous, no, not one. Ring any bells? They're in my Bible, are they in yours? They seem to be missing from yours, as far as I can tell. Hint: If your Bible's pages have holes in them where things have been cut out, you need a new Bible.

The fact of the matter will remain that there is not one single named person in the entire Bible who is said to be headed to the Lake of Fire. Not a one. And there is not one named person even threatened with such a fate. Yet y'all will swear it's Gospel, and deny that Jesus does save the WHOLE WORLD just as He presented.

Does the name Judas Iscariot ring a bell? How about the one called AntiChrist? How about those who John refers to as going out from us, because they were never of us? How about the Scribes and Pharisees who committed the Unpardonable Sin of calling the Holy Spirit an unclean spirit, of whom Jesus specifically says that they will NEVER have forgiveness, in this world or the next? The "whole world", by which you obviously mean every man without exception is a myth, and scripture shows it to be a false concept. "Whole world" means all men without distinction, not without exception.

enjoy!

NBF

 

[squint]

What did Jesus mean when he said, "I am the Way the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me."?

John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Think you can stop Jesus from doing that?

How 'bout this one? Perhaps you can make these Words "go away?"

John 6:37
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Jesus Himself eliminated Hinduism, Islamists, Taoists, Buddhists, and all who do not follow Him. I do not condemn them, Reformed Theology does not condemn them, Jesus will.

Or perhaps as the scriptures say, unbelievers are in fact blinded by the "god" of this world, and that blinder of them WILL pay the penalty you expect, and the SLAVES of sin actually DO go free?

God could actually be effective apart from "your activation" of Him.

John 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

So you are saying I can't believe this nfool? Do you think it matters to me if you don't? I certainly don't judge you for that...

He will call out from them as many as He determines to save, and those whom He calls will become Christians. The rest will perish in their sins, and be judged for their sins.

Oh? Perhaps we should write this one out of the ledgers as well?

2 Corinthians 5:19
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them.

It's not a matter of any of us putting "filters"on anything. It's a matter of accepting what the Word of God says, as it is said, and not going beyond it.

1 John 4:7
-anyone who loves both knows God and is born of God

These are just so difficult aren't they?

We are commanded to love all men. True Calvinists and Reformed Brethren do as God has commanded.

Calling people "totally depraved" and "predestined" to burn alive forever does not look like "love" to me

Some of the greatest Evangelistic efforts are Reformed. Your charges against who you falsely label as "Determinists" are nothing more than hot air, a straw man you make show of knocking down time and again, making noise about what you label as wrong. you're not even hitting the target, let alone making any charges that will stick.

This is just a sprinkling of Gods Great Glory in His Word...there is an avalanche of same, but of course all the Word in the Bible in this regard will not sway you from Mr. Calvin, the arbiter of what you are allowed to "accept."

Sorry to pop your bubble, but that is precisely what the Word of God teaches. All have been shut up in sin.

Perhaps you'd find it more than a bit strange that Paul called the "sin indwelling" his flesh NO LONGER I twice in Romans 7. But of course you will only insist that it is only the other guy, your neighbors whom you're commanded to love.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,

Because of the presence of sin indwelling. He who commits sin is OF THE DEVIL. (1 John 3:8) Why then do you blame ONLY mankind?

There is none righteous, no, not one. Ring any bells?

Oh?
Gen. 6:9
-Noah was a righteous man
Matt. 1:19
-Joseph her husband was a righteous man
Luke 1:
5-a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6And they were both righteous before God,
Luke 2:25
-Simeon, who was righteous
Acts 10:22
-Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man

Let's widen this out a little:
Romans 4:5
However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Just to top it off:

1 John 2:29
-know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

Now ya gotta admit that this door may be a little wider than you think.

Let's widen those Gates just a little further:

Romans 3:
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference

Catch who's FAITH makes ALL righteous? Not yours. Not mine. His.

They're in my Bible, are they in yours? They seem to be missing from yours, as far as I can tell. Hint: If your Bible's pages have holes in them where things have been cut out, you need a new Bible.

I know where unrighteousness comes from, and it's NOT from Gods offspring, but from that which indwells the flesh, which is of the devil. There is your "cause" of "un"righteousness. And I doubt very much that you are allowed to accept any of the above scriptures which "should" be in "your Bible" too eh?

Does the name Judas Iscariot ring a bell? How about the one called AntiChrist?

Now ya gotta be asking yourself, if SATAN entered INTO Judas, why would you BLAME only Judas?

Luke 22:3
Then entered Satan into Judas
John 13:27
And after the sop Satan entered into him.

Are you seriously going to say that God Himself did not PLAN His Own Son's death? That it was ALL just a 'bad accident?' Please. Judas was USED by Satan to EXERCISE Gods Will and Intent with JESUS. Any common determinist should understand that one. Do you seriously expect me to condemn Judas when SATAN was clearly in the middle of this whole deal?

And of course I do not expect the Anti-Christ to be anything but UTTERLY DESTROYED, but that ANTI-Christ is NOT your fellow man. It is an ANTI-spirit that abides in the FLESH that is NOT MANKIND. How many "examples" of this FACT would you like to see from the Gospels? Jesus separated "evil entities" from mankind on nearly EVERY PAGE. Why do you overlook that? I know why. And of course I don't blame YOU nor do I blame Judas.

All of Israel are taught in the Old Testament that they are GODS CHILDREN, ALL OF THEM. Deut. 14:1 and Psalm 82:6 come immediately to mind. On that basis WHY would I condemn GODS CHILDREN, Judas included? Why? There is a far more obvious culprit involved upon which to "lay the blame" and that blame IS and WILL be accounted to the DEVIL AND HIS MESSENGERS who ALSO abide in the flesh of mankind, as scriptures CLEARLY show.

But you know a funny thing happens when you sit in "church."

Mark 4:15
-where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

How about those who John refers to as going out from us, because they were never of us?

Well, I guess that would be because THEY ARE IN US wouldn't it? They have to be IN to go OUT.

2 Cor. 11:
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Have you gotten the picture here yet? Remember that it is SATAN who will blind you and keep you from LOVING your neighbors as YOURself. Now that's pretty simple isn't it?

How about the Scribes and Pharisees who committed the Unpardonable Sin of calling the Holy Spirit an unclean spirit, of whom Jesus specifically says that they will NEVER have forgiveness, in this world or the next? The "whole world", by which you obviously mean every man without exception is a myth,

Well let's SEE? IF SATAN spoke through the mouth of Peter while Peter was standing with Jesus do you really think SATAN cares? If JESUS spoke to EVIL AND DEMONIC entities in the Pharisee (keep in mind these are "children of God now") can you really say that Jesus was NOT talking to the CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL IN THEM??? Please, let's not lose sight of the enemies here, even though we CAN'T SEE THEM, we do know they are there because JESUS addressed these entities IN mankinds flesh didn't He? Didn't He? Tell me that He didn't and you will righteously get your theological head handed to you on a platter.

Just WHO do you think Jesus is going to say on that day, DEPART FROM ME YOU WORKERS OF INIQUITY in THOSE PEOPLE who did RIGHTEOUS ACTS? Do you really think that Jesus is going to condemn those who obviously WORKED in His Behalf? I doubt it very much. But THESE TOO had 'sin indwelling' which actions are OF THE DEVIL.

and scripture shows it to be a false concept. "Whole world" means all men without distinction, not without exception.

Adam was a son of God. When did Adam's offspring stop being that? All of Israel are taught by scripture that THEY TOO are Gods children, so I guess being GODS CHILDREN didn't stop with Adam did it?

Paul taught that ALL MANKIND are Gods offspring in Acts 17:23-29. Enemies of the Gospel as it pertains to ISRAEL shall ALL be saved according to Romans 11.

Now just what is it that you ain't gettin' here?


enjoy!

squint

 

[nobdysfool]

I can see right now that wasting any further time with you is and will be fruitless. Your attitude belies the words you claim. Trying to bait me and incite anger over your false accusations and false depictions shows that you haven't learned to practice what you preach.

You may have the last word, as I know you would want it. You haven't "won" anything, and I have no time to waste trying to show your error, because it's obvious you believe you have none.

Do not post to me further.

 

[Van]

Four of the five doctrines of Calvinism, as defined by the TULIP are offensive to many people but that does not mean they are false. They are false doctrines because they contradict what the bible teaches, and the bible presents the truth.


For example, the Calvinism doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability, cannot be true because unregenerate men are aware of God and seek God and are making an effort to enter the kingdom sucessfully, such that they are entering. Matthew 23:13.

Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is also a false because 1 John 2:2 says Christ became the propitation or means of salvation, for not only us, but also for the whole world.

These doctrines rob our Lord of His compassion for the lost, and therefore are offensive to those who love the Lord because He first loved us when we were lost. When we were living without mercy, before we were chosen to be His people, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

 

[Reformationist]

For example, the Calvinism doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability, cannot be true because unregenerate men are aware of God and seek God and are making an effort to enter the kingdom sucessfully, such that they are entering. Matthew 23:13.

Please identify a single person who seeks God before God regenerates them. When I say "seek," I don't speak of those who desire the benefits without the Benefactor. I speak of those that have faith in God and, on the basis of that faith, seek to glorify God. Oh, and then, enlighten us to how you know that God has not first changed their spiritual polarity such that His work isn't the mitigating factor in why they seek Him.

The Bible repeatedly speaks of man's natural enmity toward God. You continue to deny this and, in doing so, seek to appropriate glory that belongs to God alone. God is the reason you sought Him. Apart from His work in your heart, you would have happily continued on your way to hell.

Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is also a false because 1 John 2:2 says Christ became the propitation or means of salvation, for not only us, but also for the whole world.

Van, here we see the weakness of your position. You must invent definitions of words so that they can be used within your ideological framework. A propitiation is something that propitiates. If it doesn't propitiate, it cannot rightly be called a propitiation. Common logic, right? You'd think but then you come along and attempt to steal any and all value from the word. If Christ is the propitiation that means He actually propitiates. The question, or rather the disagreement, between your position on the atonement and ours isn't who is the propitiation. Rather, the disagreement is, what was God's intent in the propitiatory work of Christ. You contend that God intended, through the atoning work of Christ, to propitiate the wrath of God against the iniquity of all mankind. The inherent problem with taking this position is that you do not, likewise, contend that He was successful in doing so. You simply submit the most heinous of views that He failed. Sure, you don't acknowledge that your view is that He failed. To that I say, "Denial isn't just a river in Egypt."

These doctrines rob our Lord of His compassion for the lost, and therefore are offensive to those who love the Lord because He first loved us when we were lost.

And here is where your presumption gets you in theological hot water. Even putting aside the fact that your view has God failing to achieve His desire to save someone, which is directly at odds with explicit Scripture, you start from the position that any view that has God not intending to save everyone marks Him as uncompassionate. What makes such a criteria flawed is that it carries the implicit and arrogant presumption that man deserves the goodwill and kindness of God and God's failure to extend said goodwill makes Him heartless. Not surprising as the rest of your theology places man's glory at the center of the Gospel but no less heinous in nature.

Once again, though I doubt you will pay attention, I encourage you to cast aside your anthropocentric doctrines and embrace God centered theology.

 

[KEPLER]

For example, the Calvinism doctrine

Wait, let's stop right there for just a second. I think you meant CalvinisT doctrine, not CalvinisM doctrine. The former is the adjective, which is what this sentence demands, the latter is a noun, which this sentence already has.

Moving on to more substantive things...

of Total Spiritual Inability, cannot be true because unregenerate men are aware of God and seek God and are making an effort to enter the kingdom sucessfully, such that they are entering. Matthew 23:13.

My ALL-TIME-FAVORTIE single line from a movie is from the movie, The Princess Bride, after Vizzini has cut the rope which The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing:

Inigo Montoya: He did not fall.
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE!!
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Well, Van,...you keep using that verse. I do not think that verse means what you think it means.

IN order for Matthew 23:13 to mean what you think it means, you must first commit two exegetical fallacies:

1. You must divorce the verse from the surrounding context.
2. You must ascribe a definition of terms to the verse which are not in fact contained in the verse (i.e., eisegesis)

As for fallacy #1, the context here suggests that a group of people ("those who would enter") are being denied entry because of artificial rules created by those who are preventing their entry (the pharisees). If you continue to verse 14, we see that "those who would enter" are in fact proselytes. Which brings us to fallacy #2.

Your reading implies -- when you refer to them as unregenerate -- that you think these people were wanting to enter the Kingdom of their own naked will. But the TEXT says otherwise. The fact that they are proselytes whom the pharisees had sought out implies that the pharisees had shared something of God's Word with them. Since faith comes by hearing, the ONLY conclusion we can come to from these verses is that these people had heard the Word preached to them and were converts whom the pharisees shackled with the yoke of the Law.

That is the proper, contextual reading of Matthew 23:13-14. When read correctly, it does not (indeed, cannot) be used as a trump or foil against Total Depravity.

Thanks for playing; better luck next time.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[Van]

Hi Kepler, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your post, an actual effort to present the truth of scripture.

First, why did I mangle my first sentence? I was trying to avoid addressing a group and focus on the doctrine. So if I said one of the doctrines of Calvinism, the doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability... then no weakness in my argument on this point exists. Moving on to more substansive matters.

I agree, Matthew 23:13 might not convey what I think the author intended to convey, but while we are addressing the general uncertainly of biblical understanding, might we also not put forth the possibility that the verse means exactly what I believe in means, and you have missed the truth? Further study of the verse may open our eyes.

One, does my understanding require divorcing the verse from the context, i.e am I really ripping it out of context. That charge, without illustration carries little weight.

Here is how the NIV renders the verse. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to enter." So it seems my understanding of the verse is possibly valid, at least it is shared with others.

Next you make the leap, perhaps valid, that the people prevented from entering are the same people in view in verse 14. Could be, but that would seem to be supposition. But even if this is true, my position on verse 13 is consistent with this view, therefore, nothing has been divorced from context.

An unregenerate person is a person that has not been born again, a person whose faith has not or not yet been credited as righteousness, and therefore the person has not been spiritually placed in Christ, baptized into Christ's death, undergo the circumcision of Christ, and arisen in Christ a new creation born again by the will of God. That is my meaning by unregenerate.

So in their "naked unregenerate condition" they are trying to enter the kingdom. But to that they must believe in God and believe God rewards those who seek Him. So as you correctly point out, they must have heard "some" of the Word of God. Hearing the word does not regenerate all who here it, therefore hearing the word does not equate with regeneration. Therefore they heard the word before they were regenerated. When you say "converts" I assume you mean converts to Judaism, not Converts to "the way." So they were "shackled" with the heavy yoke of legalist judaism.

Now lets address your assertion that the verse does not demonstrate that Total Spiritual Inability (which is the term that expresses the inability of the unregenerate to supposed seek God and try to enter into the kingdom of God).

Had they been under the influence of Total Spiritual Inability, they could not have been trying to enter unless they had been regenerated by irresistible grace. But since they were shutoff, they could not have been under the compelling influence of irresistible grace. So the doctrines of Calvinism are demonstrated false. But lets go on. What about the Arminian view of "before grace" (I mispell previenent) so I am trying to avoid using it. Yes, but then they have the ability to accept or reject the gospel, and therefore all men by the grace of God have the ability to seek God. So this verse is not being used to debate the Arminian view, invalid as it may be, but just the view of Calvinism.

Hopefully, now you will agree, that my view is contextual, and it says what I believe it says, faith comes before regeneration, Total Spiritual Inability is a false doctrine of Calvinism, and Irresistible Grace is a false doctrine of Calvinism.

 

[KEPLER]

Hi Kepler, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your post, an actual effort to present the truth of scripture.

First, why did I mangle my first sentence? I was trying to avoid addressing a group and focus on the doctrine. So if I said one of the doctrines of Calvinism, the doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability... then no weakness in my argument on this point exists. Moving on to more substansive matters.

I honestly can't say why you mangled; but I explained how you mangled it: you used a noun where you needed to use an adjective. But don't mind me on this; I am the self-appointed grammar czar of CF.

I agree, Matthew 23:13 might not convey what I think the author intended to convey, but while we are addressing the general uncertainly of biblical understanding, might we also not put forth the possibility that the verse means exactly what I believe in means, and you have missed the truth? Further study of the verse may open our eyes.

One, does my understanding require divorcing the verse from the context, i.e am I really ripping it out of context. That charge, without illustration carries little weight.

I did illustrate it.

Here is how the NIV renders the verse. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to enter." So it seems my understanding of the verse is possibly valid, at least it is shared with others.

It's only valid if it is separated from 23:15 (most Bibles don't have a 23:14, a detail I had forgotten in my previous post...).

Next you make the leap, perhaps valid, that the people prevented from entering are the same people in view in verse 14. Could be, but that would seem to be supposition. But even if this is true, my position on verse 13 is consistent with this view, therefore, nothing has been divorced from context.

It is not a "leap" at all. Look at the structure of the text. Jesus uses a common rhetiorical device here to connect these two statements: he uses the exact same words to preface his point, to wit, (v.13) But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! and (v.15) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Using the exact same phrase to preface his condemnation is the link between these two statements. Rhetorically, there is absolutley no doubt that the latter statement is an expansion of the former. The people in verse thirteen who "wanted to enter the Kingdom" are indeed the proselytes. Having heard the Word, it is indeed possible that they were regenerate, since we know that faith comes by hearing.

An unregenerate person is a person that has not been born again, a person whose faith has not or not yet been credited as righteousness, and therefore the person has not been spiritually placed in Christ, baptized into Christ's death, undergo the circumcision of Christ, and arisen in Christ a new creation born again by the will of God. That is my meaning by unregenerate.

So in their "naked unregenerate condition" they are trying to enter the kingdom. But to that they must believe in God and believe God rewards those who seek Him. So as you correctly point out, they must have heard "some" of the Word of God. Hearing the word does not regenerate all who here it, therefore hearing the word does not equate with regeneration. Therefore they heard the word before they were regenerated. When you say "converts" I assume you mean converts to Judaism, not Converts to "the way." So they were "shackled" with the heavy yoke of legalist judaism.

The problem here is that you are trying to use this verse as the trump card, when in no way shape or form can you definitively establish that these people were unregenerate. Keeping vs 13 & 15 together strongly implies that they were regenerate. At the very least, however, you have to admit that you cannot make a definitive case from this verse.

Now lets address your assertion that the verse does not demonstrate that Total Spiritual Inability (which is the term that expresses the inability of the unregenerate to supposed seek God and try to enter into the kingdom of God).

Had they been under the influence of Total Spiritual Inability, they could not have been trying to enter unless they had been regenerated by irresistible grace.

And I have demonstrated quite strongly that this quite likely was the case.

But since they were shutoff,

You have not, and indeed cannot, prove that from this verse. That is my whole point.

they could not have been under the compelling influence of irresistible grace. So the doctrines of Calvinism are demonstrated false. But lets go on. What about the Arminian view of "before grace" (I mispell previenent) so I am trying to avoid using it. Yes, but then they have the ability to accept or reject the gospel, and therefore all men by the grace of God have the ability to seek God. So this verse is not being used to debate the Arminian view, invalid as it may be, but just the view of Calvinism.

Hopefully, now you will agree, that my view is contextual, and it says what I believe it says, faith comes before regeneration, Total Spiritual Inability is a false doctrine of Calvinism, and Irresistible Grace is a false doctrine of Calvinism.

I believe I have demonstrated that your view is not at all contextual. Mind you, I am NOT arguing that Matt 23:13 can be used to support total depravity; I am only arguing that it is in no wise a foil against total depravity.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[Jipsah]

I agree, Matthew 23:13 might not convey what I think the author intended to convey

Yeah, we know. That's the old reliable "that's what it says, but what it really means is..." technique. Handy, that. Allows one to make any verse in the Bible mean whatever you'd like it to mean without any regards to what's actually written. It's the same technique that allows "he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" to "really mean" "he hath not chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." Handy for keeping the Bible from ruining our favorite doctrines.

but while we are addressing the general uncertainly of biblical understanding

Yeah, when the words can't be counted on, we're left to just make it up as we go, aren't we?

might we also not put forth the possibility that the verse means exactly what I believe in means

Sure, why not? It might also "mean" "I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus, kookookachoo" if you doctrine demands it.

Next you make the leap, perhaps valid, that the people prevented from entering are the same people in view in verse 14. Could be, but that would seem to be supposition.

Since versification is entirely arbitrary, I'd say the burden falls on you to demonstrate that our Lord changed subjects between the two points.

Now lets address your assertion that the verse does not demonstrate that Total Spiritual Inability (which is the term that expresses the inability of the unregenerate to supposed seek God and try to enter into the kingdom of God).

To seek God? Sure, lots of unregenerate folks seek God. There's a seeker born every minute, which is why the world is chocabloc with strange and arcane religions.

 

[Van]

Ok, lets cut to the chase, Matthew 23:13 cannot be used to say that folks who were trying to enter the kingdom were shutoff. Is that your argument? Lets assume that it is. Now shut off means prevented from entering in my view.

You are quite right, I cannot prove my position from the verse, I can only demonstrate it, and it is up to you to accept it or reject it.

Say you are coming up the steps to a home, and I close the door right in front of you, shutting off access to the home. So I not only do not go in, but I prevent you, who was trying to enter, from entering. That is what the false teachers did.

Now lets deal with the idea that something about my view is inconsistent with Matthew 23:15, but you have not said what it is. You say they (the folks in verse 13)had heard the word, but I say yes had heard the word so my view is contextual.

In summary, you indicated I was not using Matthew 23:13 in context, because those that were entering had heard the word and had been converted to (unsaid but I assume) Judiaism. But my position is that the folks in Matthew 23:13 had heard the word, faith comes from hearing, so my view is fully in context.

The people could not have been regenerated, or they would not have been prevented from entering by the false teaching, they would already be in. People are regenerated after God spiritually places them in Christ, and by that act, God spiritually placing them "in Christ" they enter the kingdom.

Now lets assume your view is the people were just temporarily prevented from entering, but they entered at another time. Now we come to the crux of our disagreement. You seem to accept that if the bible does not say it didn't happen, then it can be accepted as happening. My view, is only what the bible says did happen, either by direct revelation or by logical necessity, are to be accepted as doctrine. Speculation, this might be so, the bible does not say it is not so, should not be presented as doctrine, because the basis is simply the invention of men. Therefore the word says they were prevented from entering, so the doctrine should be based on the assumption they were prevented from entering. Note that in verse 15, the effect of the false teaching was to make a person the son of the devil. How could a regenerate person, a born again son of God, become a son of the devil?

Matthew 23:13 demonstrates that Total Spiritual Inability is a false doctrine for unregenerate men had heard the gospel and were seeking God, trying to enter the kingdom. They could not be born again, because they had not yet been spiritually placed in Christ.