Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Poll - Once Saved Always Saved
- Thread starter SeekingTheTruth0819
- Start date
- Status
Charis kai Dunamis
χάρις καὶ δύναμις
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Charis kai Dunamis
χάρις καὶ δύναμις
Okay, so if God's ultimate purpose is that we (humanity) reign with Christ, and not all do actually reign with Christ, then God's purpose is not fullly fulfilled, is it?
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
The purpose of His raising up pharoah was NOT because of his unbelief as you say. It was "TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH".
How can that reconcile with your belief?
Hmm. So you think we will become Gods? If that is the case, then we will become equals with Christ, correct? Are you saying we will become deity?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Charis kai Dunamis
χάρις καὶ δύναμις
Listen, just because I disagree, and IMO for a good reason, doesn't mean I am stupid. I would never call anyone stupid for simply disagreeing.
Here's where you have contradictions. If God's ultimate purpose is contigent upon man desiring it, then it no longer remains His ultimate purpose, simple as that. His ultimate purpose is now to adhere to man's desires. Once man does not desire God's purpose, God now institutes another purpose, and now the original purpose can no longer be ultimate or governing. God's ultimate purpose MUST influence all of His actions, otherwise it ceases to be His purpose in all things, and is no longer God's reason for acting the way he does.
According to you, what He originally wanted was for Pharoah to reign with Christ. So what God wanted technically wasn't in accord with that. God wanted to demonstrate His power in Pharoah according to the text, not raise him up with Christ. I understand that you are saying God originally wanted pharoah to reign with Christ, but that once He was in a state of unbelief, God only then used Him in such a manner. Problem is, His secondary purpose of demonstrating His power isn't in accord with His primary purpose, is it? Further, how could God be sure Pharoah was not going to repent further on in his lifetime?
"I guess here is where we conveniently go brain dead."
Upvote
0
Listen, I didn't call you stupid, further fortifying my opinion that you have a problem in reading comprehension.
#2. You haven't said you disagree for any good reason but have indicated you are on fishing expedition. Don't you believe I can see though all that from you. You aren't looking for answers but words that might trip me up.
No contradiction. You just can't accept the idea that man has a freewill and God's purpose for man is contingient upon man submitting it to Him.
That is your twist on it based upon your mis-representation of my words. No where in my remarks have I declared God has to adhere to man's desires. God has His own timetable for summing up all things in Christ. If man is on board, man will be included. Obviously [to me anyway] all men won't be on board simply because of their own volition they will not bend their knee to God.
Too much convolution for this person to sort out.
You have been disenginuous.
Upvote
0
Charis kai Dunamis
χάρις καὶ δύναμις
You didn't flat out say it, but don't tell me it wasn't inferred.
Did it ever occur to you that I ALWAYS look for both? I am very critical for a reason; if I can logically break it down and make it contradict itself, then I can be sure it is not true. If I cannot, then it may be true, and I may adopt it as my own. Thus, all things spoken must be broken down and analyzed and critiqued. So you're wrong that I'm looking not for answers, but I would agree that I am looking for things that trip you up. If I didn't, then I would just be accepting all that you say!
I can't accept it because Scripture teaches the opposite.
Rom 9:11 ... so that God's purpose according to {His} choice (not ours) would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls...
You're saying the exact opposite, that God's purpose is contigent upon our choices. I'm sorry, but until you expound, I will have to disagree. Simply saying "No contradiction" doesn't help at all, it's just a restating of your illogical position.
last post-
Thus, if God's purpose is contingent upon man desiring it, then God's purpose only becomes His purpose when man desires it. This means God's purpose is always in accordance with whether man desires it or not. Your belief taken fruition is exactly that: "God has to adhere to man's desires."
So tell me... if it is obvious that some men won't be on board, how was God sure in eternity past that some would, if He didn't predestine it to be so? I don't believe you can answer that question without questioning the omniscience of God as well.
Upvote
0
You are too quick for the kill. I even included myself by inserting the word, we. Again, it is, I believe a reading for comprehension problem.
Sure, but with you people one always outweighs the other. That has been my experience. With a hope for genuineness from you because you asked, I took a chance and wrote what I did all that out clearly. I should know better.
I have no problem with anyone doing that however, when you run out argument it goes circular, guaranteed. That is not honest since it doesnt support sincerity. FWIW, I am very critical too and words mean something. I try to get it right when I read and when I write.
You say it doesnt and yet it is part of the elementary teaching of Jesus. Go figger. Not to believe it is to mis-represent what He has taught. I say mis-represent because that is what it winds up being in order for you to support the sum total of your doctrine. The sad part is when you don't recognize your contradictions after the first lap around the circle.
Aside from being irrelevant, that is a twist on Pauls words, again to support your doctrine.
It is contingient upon our desire AFTER we know about. The gate is narrow and few go therein. God's purpose is an absolute. Man's freewill submitted to God is the ticket whereby, in the process of submitting, is God's will and purpose for man made complete.. It is man's choice in the matter after he is born again. Let he who builds his house, count the cost.
You call it illogical in ignorance. Study for yourself. Ask intelligent questions after studying the scriptures to see I am not speaking of salvation, which is probably the only part of the gospel you have been exposed to. Thats too bad.
A twist to make it say something else.
Adding the word "adhere" only puts more twist on it. God has only to adhere to His Character. God's purpose is always in accordance with what He wants and He will have from men who "freely" love Him.
His forknowledge.
In this He only predestined His purpose.
I just answered it. Ponder it, why dont you?
Upvote
0
Charis kai Dunamis
χάρις καὶ δύναμις
Ouch. You complain about misrepresentation, and then say hypocritcal things like this.
I think that's just your perception, that one has run out of argument. Just because someone reposts something similar to what they have already said, and clarifies even further in response to an argument doesn't mean they have run out of argument; rather, they think you don't see what they see, and they obviously think it is an effective enough argument to post it again. They think that they can expound further and further so you understand. That's not circular arguing. Circular arguing never occurs because of the arguments themselves, but only because those holding the arguments aren't willing to honestly evaluate the other's point. So, if I honestly evaluate your point, and even restate something I've already said, it doesn't mean it is circular arguing, it just means maybe you should look further into what I say, and not assume you know everything about everyone and everything about every argument as to not even waste your time with it. Believe it or not, that is the vibe that you give off, that your view is absolutely correct and no other argument even deserves another thought in your mind because you know them all exhaustively. This is because you even refuse to discuss another's argument. Discussion shows that you even care enough to ponder the argument, but flat out dismissing the whole idea shows you don't care at all, and also have no respect for the position.
But of course, you don't always get it right, and sometimes you say incorrect and crude things. Like:
That was not careful, and that was not right. "You people" is totally incorrect. You are stereotyping us. You can't assume something about all Calvinists based on your experience, that will get you in trouble.
The sad part is that when you say this, you don't see all of the fingers pointing back at yourself. Everything that you say is the same accusation I would make against you. The difference is that I am willing to discuss while you couldn't care less about any other view than your own because you think you know the entire opposing view exhaustively, or at least that's what I get from you.
Now do you see the total disrespect you have for me and my view? You simply state I am wrong with no support or backing. It infers that your opinion is so superior to mine that whatever you state is true just because you have stated it. Why should I care discuss you views and to learn about them when you don't even care to tell me why mine are wrong?
You need to clarify your position, because right now you are majorly contradicting yourself (at least what is written is contradictory).
You wrote:
Now if "it" is God's purpose, then how can you say this:
I don't see how this can work. If God's purpose is contingent upon our desiring it, then it no longer is absolute once we reject it. Correct? If I am wrong, then please tell me how, because so far you have yet to show me why my objection is incorrect.
But of course, I would say the same thing about your objections to my beliefs.
???
Once again, you just assume things about me based on a partiallity of what I know and have said to you. To assume the I have not been exposed to any sort of sanctification or what that even means is extremely rude.
Once again, a statement with no backing.
Okay, I agree. But that's not following through in the rest of your logic for some reason.
His forknowledge.
and how does God have foreknowledge of something ultimately determined apart from himself, which has no origination within Himself? The fact that you admit God has foreknowledge shows your contradicting beliefs. Foreknowledge requires determination of some sort, whether it be passive or active. Therefore, Gods' foreknowledge is effectual, in that all that can possibly come to pass is in accordance with it. This means you are stripped of choice, in that it is actually determined by God's allowance. God allows all things to come into being which are, thus filtering all existence.
HUGE theological error. God cannot "predestine His purpose", for His purpose is part of Himself, and therefore His purpose is eternal. It must be eternal, because it is the reason for creation, therefore giving reason as to why God, in eternity past, decided to create. If it is not eternal, then God must indeed need an ultimate purpose to predestine His ultimate purpose, otherwise He has no reason, which is a complete contradiction.
Ponder that one why don't you.
Upvote
0
JesusFreak wrote:
I dismiss yours for only one reason, disingenuine circularism and not for any truth or error that might be contained in your post.
I refuse to chase your rabbits.
Originally Posted by Ormly
Sure, but with you people one always outweighs the other. That has been my experience. With a hope for genuineness from you because you asked, I took a chance and wrote what I did all that out clearly. I should know better.Ouch. You complain about misrepresentation, and then say hypocritcal things like this.
Originally Posted by Ormly
I have no problem with anyone doing that however, when you run out argument it goes circular, guaranteed.I think that's just your perception, that one has run out of argument. Just because someone reposts something similar to what they have already said, and clarifies even further in response to an argument doesn't mean they have run out of argument; rather, they think you don't see what they see, and they obviously think it is an effective enough argument to post it again. They think that they can expound further and further so you understand. That's not circular arguing. Circular arguing never occurs because of the arguments themselves, but only because those holding the arguments aren't willing to honestly evaluate the other's point. So, if I honestly evaluate your point, and even restate something I've already said, it doesn't mean it is circular arguing, it just means maybe you should look further into what I say, and not assume you know everything about everyone and everything about every argument as to not even waste your time with it. Believe it or not, that is the vibe that you give off, that your view is absolutely correct and no other argument even deserves another thought in your mind because you know them all exhaustively. This is because you even refuse to discuss another's argument. Discussion shows that you even care enough to ponder the argument, but flat out dismissing the whole idea shows you don't care at all, and also have no respect for the position.
I dismiss yours for only one reason, disingenuine circularism and not for any truth or error that might be contained in your post.
I refuse to chase your rabbits.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Charis kai Dunamis
χάρις καὶ δύναμις
You're kidding me! Where am I using "disingenuine circularism"???
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
Ben, instead of going around stating that "see" means "enter" like you constantly do, please answer my post to you-
http://christianforums.com/showpost....&postcount=954
Ah --- perhaps I missed that one. Thanx!Ben, instead of going around stating that "see" means "enter" like you constantly do, please answer my post to you-
http://christianforums.com/showpost....&postcount=954
Quote:
Ben, we've been over this. Only by your disregard for verse 3 do you make see=enter. If Jesus had meant enter the first time, He would have said it. Even so, I can argue from your side and still meet the condition.
Enter, gr. Eiserchomai
to go out or come in: to enter
of men or animals, as into a house or a city
of Satan taking possession of the body of a person
of things: as food, that enters into the eater's mouth
metaph.
of entrance into any condition, state of things, society, employment
to arise, come into existence, begin to be
of men, to come before the public
to come into life
of thoughts that come into the mind
See and enter are quite different. To make one mean the other is not an easy thing to do. If anything, ANYTHING, enter actually means see, not see means enter. The greek is on my side, Ben.
There are those who assert that "water" in Jn3:3-6, means "waterbaptism"; but clearly it's a repetetive narrative:Ben, we've been over this. Only by your disregard for verse 3 do you make see=enter. If Jesus had meant enter the first time, He would have said it. Even so, I can argue from your side and still meet the condition.
Enter, gr. Eiserchomai
to go out or come in: to enter
of men or animals, as into a house or a city
of Satan taking possession of the body of a person
of things: as food, that enters into the eater's mouth
metaph.
of entrance into any condition, state of things, society, employment
to arise, come into existence, begin to be
of men, to come before the public
to come into life
of thoughts that come into the mind
See and enter are quite different. To make one mean the other is not an easy thing to do. If anything, ANYTHING, enter actually means see, not see means enter. The greek is on my side, Ben.
"Unless you are born of water and the spirit, you cannot enter Heaven.
That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
Clearly "spirit" = "spirit", so "water" = "flesh". Both statements can be combined:
"Unless you are born of water/flesh and Spirit/spirit, you cannot enter Heaven."
Now add to this a third statement:
"Unless you are born-again (born from above), you cannot see Heaven".
According to Strong's Greek Lexicon "eidos" has as primary meaning, "see with the eyes, perceive with any sense, physically behold". "Understand" is a minor meaning. Combine the three statements:
"Unless you are born of water/flesh and Spirit/spirit/from-above you cannot enter/see Heaven."
Quote:
I believe I have properly exegeted the passage so that "see" is the best possible interpretation for "see". Believing "see" actually means "enter" is just a way around having to accept Calvinistic teaching that regeneration is prior to justification
Yes, "see" means "see"; but you haven't provided any reason that Jesus meant "understand". The best meaning in context, is "physically-behold". Give me any reason why that "combined-three-statements" just posted above, is not valid and acceptible. By forcing "see" to mean "understand", it is just as much of a stretch as to force "water" to mean "waterbaptism".I believe I have properly exegeted the passage so that "see" is the best possible interpretation for "see". Believing "see" actually means "enter" is just a way around having to accept Calvinistic teaching that regeneration is prior to justification
Quote:
Well, the GWTJ doesn't include any of the elect, only those who are reprobate.
What is "GWTJ"?Well, the GWTJ doesn't include any of the elect, only those who are reprobate.
Quote:
This an entirely different topic, but I will give a brief answer.
God's decrees aren't always active; God can bring about His purposes by second causes, in other words, allowing things to happen. God allows the reprobate to go down the path they had already chosen, that is, sin. God doesn't make them do it, He only allows them to. Thus His decree is in accordance (not according to) what they will instinctively do by their fallen nature.
To say "God-doesn't-make-them-do-it", does not remove the fact that He is CAUSAL. Men who cannot avoid reprobation without God's sovereign forceful intervention (and God decides NOT to intervene), are not responsible for what they could not avoid but what God chose for them TO do.This an entirely different topic, but I will give a brief answer.
God's decrees aren't always active; God can bring about His purposes by second causes, in other words, allowing things to happen. God allows the reprobate to go down the path they had already chosen, that is, sin. God doesn't make them do it, He only allows them to. Thus His decree is in accordance (not according to) what they will instinctively do by their fallen nature.
There is no difference between DIRECT cause (sovereign monergistic regeneration) and INDIRECT cause (God ignoring men to unavoidable perishing).
Quote:
Thus, God is entirely righteous for punishing sinners.
Not if they CANNOT avoid sin WITHOUT His interference (which He decided to deny them). Thus, God is entirely righteous for punishing sinners.
Quote:
God is not required to save all men, God may do whatever He pleases according to the kind intention of His will, and the ultimate glorification of Himself.
Two things here:God is not required to save all men, God may do whatever He pleases according to the kind intention of His will, and the ultimate glorification of Himself.
1. God's kind intention of will, is clearly stated "that all who see Jesus AND BELIEVE be saved". But as Jesus told Thomas (Jn20:29) "You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen and yet believed." If believing was God's decision, there could be NO difference between "seen-belief" and "unseen-belief"; but Jesus clearly says "seeing CAUSED belief, and UNSEEN belief is greater". Neither position (see-caused, unseen-greater) can exist in "predestined-belief".
2. "I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies (says the Lord God); so REPENT and LIVE." Ezk18:32 There is NO glory for God in anyone who perishes.
Quote:
If God decides that He will be the most glorified through the election of some to salvation and the passing over of other to Hell, then so be it, and He is righteous and perfect for doing so.
No; if men CANNOT avoid Hell without His decision, then HE is responsible for their perishing --- and He is unjust, and unrighteous.If God decides that He will be the most glorified through the election of some to salvation and the passing over of other to Hell, then so be it, and He is righteous and perfect for doing so.
Look at Rom3:26: "God is just and justifier of he who believes." "Just" is "dikaios" --- righteous, innocent, faultless. And as a second meaning: in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them. Rendering to each his DUE. If God DECIDES that men WILL go to Hell (and they have no possible avoidance), then He is NOT "faultless", and He does NOT render to each his DUE.
"God gives to each according to his deeds. To those who BY doing good seek glory/honor/immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation." Rm2:6-8
Nowhere is God causal to either immortality, or condemnation; those conditions are always the consequence of men's choices, not God's.
Neither you nor I can deny that God's position is RECEIVING man's consideration, rather than initiating it. See Heb11:6.
Quote:
I take no offense, Ben. Unlike many others on these forums, I understand that you do have a set of beliefs like anyone else, and you support them with Scripture. Any idea that is founded within Scripture is worth the time to evaluate, yours and mine alike. So feel free to criticize me as much as you wish, it will only reshape my systematic theology so that it becomes even more in accordance with the truth of God, which is His Word.
This is one of the coolest statements that has been posted. I perceive respect for what I've been saying; I pray that I have shown equal respect for you, and everyone else.I take no offense, Ben. Unlike many others on these forums, I understand that you do have a set of beliefs like anyone else, and you support them with Scripture. Any idea that is founded within Scripture is worth the time to evaluate, yours and mine alike. So feel free to criticize me as much as you wish, it will only reshape my systematic theology so that it becomes even more in accordance with the truth of God, which is His Word.
THIS is the spirit we desire here; kindness, love, and desiring ONLY to grow closer to God and understand His truths.
I'm very pleased with you, and even if we do not agree on all things, honored to consider you my saved brother.
Upvote
0
M
MamaZ
Guest
Well Christians are not the citizens of earth. For our citizenship is in heaven. So to see the Kingdom of Heaven is to be born of the Spirit of God for then through our spiritual eyes we can see the Kingdom of Heaven but a natural man cannot.
Upvote
0
Quoted by MamaZ:
Well Christians are not the citizens of earth. For our citizenship is in heaven. So to see the Kingdom of Heaven is to be born of the Spirit of God for then through our spiritual eyes we can see the Kingdom of Heaven but a natural man cannot.
Hi, "MamaZ". Does John3:3 convey "perceive", or "physically behold"? Is there any place in Scripture that indicates natural (unregenerated men) cannot believe savingly in Jesus?Well Christians are not the citizens of earth. For our citizenship is in heaven. So to see the Kingdom of Heaven is to be born of the Spirit of God for then through our spiritual eyes we can see the Kingdom of Heaven but a natural man cannot.
Upvote
0
A Brother In Christ
Senior Veteran
Well Christians are not the citizens of earth. For our citizenship is in heaven. So to see the Kingdom of Heaven is to be born of the Spirit of God for then through our spiritual eyes we can see the Kingdom of Heaven but a natural man cannot.Hi, "MamaZ". Does John3:3 convey "perceive", or "physically behold"? Is there any place in Scripture that indicates natural (unregenerated men) cannot believe savingly in Jesus?
answer these verses .... will recieve answer
Upvote
0
Since the Holy Spirit is given and one of things He does is to convict the world of sin, it can't be concluded to mean simply the elect therefore, other reasoning, from other scripture passages, must be considered in the issue of election.
Upvote
0
Thats exactly what it means, in fact, it was firstly referring to the elect jews on the day of pentecost acts 2:
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
God had granted them repentance by the work of the holy spirit in giving them newbirth..
acts 5:
31Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
but not only to the elect in Israel the nation but as later the elect gentiles are granted repentance too..
acts 11:
18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
So this is the world that the Holy spirit convinces of sin, the world of the elect..
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
