predestination

[rnmomof7]

And I missed this, that she was a regular church goer! Do you know what kind of church she went to?

Yes but I would rather not say if you do not mind . Some people might be offended.

 

[Chappie]

It was not luck it was grace.

The good luck of men in the hearing of the gospel is all in the hands of men .

Perhaps, just a difference of opinion, but it sounds more like winning the lottery without buying a ticket to me. From my perspectice, "That's Luck". But you choose to call it grace, Oh well!! You say po-ta-toe, i say po-taa-toe, you say to-ma-to, i say to-maa-toe.

 

[CCWoody]

I wonder what their official position is also, but I doubt that it would make much of a difference anyway. I do not believe that they are here to impose their views on anyone, but to facillitate discussion without WW3 erupting.

If I believed that Reformed Theology was heresy, should it be banned also?

Let me ask you bluntly simply because your "wonder" seems to imply your belief in such an area:

Are you either an Open Theist or a Middle Knowledge follower?

What you personally believe about Reformed Theology is irrelevant. It is quite clear from reading your posts that you personally regard our theology as heretical and us as heretics. The question is, apart from your own personal opinion, what synods and councils have pronounced Calvinism as a heresy? It has been my experience that the only ones who have done so are themselves under a heretical pronouncment from nearly the entire confessing orthodox church.

But, really, I do have a curiosity as to why you somehow don't think the gates of Hell have prevailed against the church seeing that you are not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, but aren't a Predestinarian Reformer either. That pretty much leaves you without a heritage and essentially declaring that the gates of hell have prevailed at one time in the history of the church.

 

[rnmomof7]

Yes, I remember reading some of this. He did kill at least one person (Servetus) because they disagreed with him. He has to account for those things he did. It can't be excused as "under grace".

When things do not go well in a debate somehow Servetus is brought up..as if that in any way discredits Calvinism or even Calvin himself .

It was not his sole decision as there was a charge of sedition against him as well as heresy (which was a death sentence in that time )

I am so thankfull the the handwriting of ordinances against us was erased at the cross., and that the blood of Christ covers our sins past , present and future .

God has allowed us to see his mercy even for murder in the lives of David and Moses and Paul ,

 

[Sunbeam]

Yes but I would rather not say if you do not mind . Some people might be offended.

oh you are right. I'm sorry; that was a poor question to ask

 

[Received]

When you speak that "knowledge does not force actuality," you would be correct IF you are referring to human knowledge. The problem here is that we are NOT talking about human knowledge, but Divine knowledge. This is the common mistake of the Open Theist heretics and the Middle Knowledge followers. They constantly attempt to redefine God in terms of THEIR understanding. This you are not allowed to do.

Actually, what makes God's knowledge special is the fact that it is foreknowledge, and not common knowledge. I would love you to supply me with examples of human beings possessing absolute foreknowledge that are not supported by the Lord in their task -- i.e. true prophets. Your claim is unsupported -- a fancy -- mixed with the common malice that I would have hoped is clear by now.

It is clear that the Lord does use His foreknowledge, for He has a kind of knowledge which we do not possess, as a planning faculty. For he certainly knows the end result of every single one of His own creative actions, exactly as the scriptures declare. Thus, the Lords' own foreknowledge of His own actions are certain to force an actuality of His own choosing.

It is not clear; perhaps to you, but this is only because of your many presuppositions given your reformed background. He knows the end from the beginning -- certainly --, but this end from the beginning is also with the creation of free agents who create their own future given their moral choices. To argue that God uses these human beings without respect to their intrinsic value, is a slap in the face of His own creation, and hence a slap to Himself. There is no reason to believe your view. It is open to different perspectives.

Now, it is so easy to demonstrate this:

If the LORD were to say that the moon is made of cheese He would not be lying for the moment He spoke the words the moon would certainly be made of cheese.

But of course, this has nothing to do with supporting your point.

I might be tempted to actually bring a scripture to also clearly demonstrate this point, but the last time I brought this scripture up to you, you then called the Lord Jesus a factual prophetic liar. Therefore, I will simply renew my objection and state that I will continue to have no discussion with you over the matter in this part of the forum.

Well, here's my scriptural reply:

"...this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." -- Acts 2:23

If we interpret 'foreknowledge' according to your interpretation, the scripture becomes superflously repetitive, and perfection need not emit imperfection. It would thus be saying, "...by the foreknowledge and foreknowledge of God...", which is absurd. Thus, there is a clear difference between predetermination and foreknowledge; they are in no way related, minus the fact that they involve a sense of "beforeness".


You still seem to believe that camels can travel through eyes of needles, and that Pharisees can swallow camels. So far, you have made Jesus into a lunatic, which I do not hold; thus, figurative speech comes into play.

Perhaps you wish quite hard for your worldview to be accepted; and I do not deny your intelligence, being an engineer. But do not come crying to me whenever your standings are not universally agreed on; what prevents this is what allows us to be human.

If you'd ever like to meet up sometime and box it out, let me know, for I too live in Texas. I'm tired of your attacks, for this is all they are; intelligence has nothing to do with this, for your arguments regarding a lie have not stood.

BTW, I do wonder what Christian Forum's official position is with those who fall into the Open Theist heresy and the Middle Knowledge position. Clearly your beliefs are out of line with ALL confession orthodoxy. I seem to recall that you were not allowed to post in this part of the forum.

Actually, my dear extreme Calvinist, middle knowledge is precisely the position adhered to by your kind, for the seventh point of Calvinism, according to your quote of your beloved John Piper, states that God has created the best of all possible worlds.

Again, you slap yourself. Perhaps you should learn to study, and learn to eschew temptations of Satan.

“…I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous” – Matthew 5:43-45 (NRSV)

“So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith.” – Galatians 6:10 (NRSV)

Oh, and when was I not allowed to post anywhere? Heck, even if this were so, I would still refuse the subtle device that you have invented, of creating other names and hiding under them to appeal to your pride and hope to drive home botched points. You have serious issues, my friend; and I pray that you realize the love of Christ as many here have accepted, not conditional on their doctrinal standings.

Blessings.</FONT>

 

[Received]

Actually the ability to harden your heart against God was a birthday gift from Adam

Well, I find this irrelevant to the topic at hand; the scripture seems plain to indicate that Pharoah freely hardened his heart. Moreover, if the hardening of heart is something involuntary -- being a gift -- how on earth could God blame a man for doing something he did not have a choice in? If it is a choice, this is what I am getting at. Pharoah desired the power to malice, but lacked the means because of his cowardice; God merely allowed Pharoah to be who he wished to be.

What makes you think He understood the situation? Reprobates will go to hell bragging that they will be with all their friends. They are spiritually blind and deaf. They think Hell is a joke or that they will get out of it someway

Is there any reason to believe otherwise? I find my view much more glorifying to God, for He does not have to force men to evil, but subtely allow them to evil, thus making Him sovereign, and not evil.

 

[nobdysfool]

Responsible Grace says "the Cross is effective for ALL WHO BELIEVE.

Predestined-Election says "the Cross is EFFECTIVE for NO ONE. For if elected, then it was election that effected our salvation; the Cross was merely demonstrative (or fulfilled) what God had ALREADT CHOSEN...

You have just demonstrated and underscored what I said, that you do not understand the doctrines of the Reformation at all. Why do you purposely misrepresent them? This reflects badly on your for your poor scholarship. You cannot speak with authority about something you have no understanding of.

Did you see "1984"? "History is not what happened, it is what is REMEMBERED. Those wishing to overthrow the democratic republic of America rewrite history in our educational textbooks --- Washington is portrayed as a womanizing jerk who died of syphilis. But it is a lie --- and history is NOT what is remembered, history is WHAT HAPPENED.

"1984" has nothing to do with what I was speaking of, Ben, and you know it. I took the outcome of your doctrines to their logical (admittedly absurd) conclusions to make a point. You seem determined to ignore it. No matter, it has been seen and understood by many others. Dragging a red herring across it doesn't make it go away.

Identically, theology is not subject to whim or fancy or logic or reasoning; the Scriipture cares not one bit what you think of it, or what I think of it; theology is simply exegeting what was written.

Which requires reason and logic to understand it. There is a logic and symmetry to God's Word that is truly amazing. I don't think you've seen it yet. In fact,. I KNOW you haven't seen it yet. Theology is the systematic exegesis of the Word, organizing it into undestandable explanations and teachings, to impart knowledge to the hearer, which requires that logic and reasoning must be employed. Otherwise how will anyone understand it?

Twisting Scriptures? Last page, Woody said "Jesus Paul and the Apostles believed in OSAS"; I posted verse after verse quoting Jesus, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude --- refuting OSAS. I did not twist or paraphrase or rewrite --- merely quoted them. Did any PE respond? No --- because no one could. I say with caution and utmost respect, not desiring to anger any of you --- yet it seems that the TWISTS occur in the OSAS views...

Sorry, Ben, but you do not establish the length of time that another has to respond before you claim "victory", and that no one has responded because no one CAN. And quite frankly, a lot of those will clear themselves up and be answered once you understand that some of your core premises are unscriptural. We are going to deal with the root arguments. You're bouncing all over the map, because you seem to think that you can overwhelm your opposition, and thereby claim victory. If that's all you do, you have won nothing, you have just lost your audience.

I'm sorry, NBF; I'm afraid I cannot look at these "without prejudice"; for it is Scripture, not my own pride or logic or reasoning, that gives rise to my prejudice. For me to CONSIDER "limited atonement" or "irresistible grace" or "predestined election", I would need to lay aside the Scriptures that I cherish. That I cannot do.

Then you're not much of a bible scholar. That's the mark of a closed mind. In order to learn, you must be open to being taught. If you think that the scriptures you cherish so much only hold one level of meaning, then you will never progress. God's Word is deep, and rich, with layers of meaning and teaching that go far beyond the surface. You seem to want to examine verses as though they are self-contained, each one being a doctrine unto itself. That's not the way it is. Ben. It's line upon line, precept upon precept. here a little, there a little. And the one overriding theme of scripture is that God is Sovereign, and He does as He Wills, and answers to no man. It's all about God, Ben, and none about man.

As to, "I'm not going to waste my tijme" --- I should not say this, for it is sure to anger you and others; please understand the sincerity, the love and respect with which I say --- this appears to be "posturing in the face of irrefutibility of Responsible Grace". Forgive me if that does anger you.

No, it doesn't anger me, it's just flat out wrong. RG is not irrefutable, at all. It is a wrong understanding of the doctrines of Grace, pure and simple. You have not refuted PE at all. You have not refuted Calvinism at all. You have not refuted any part of it. All you have done is kick up a lot of dust, and try to make the casual observer think that you're a "Bible Whiz" because you bombard with scripture. Then you try to say that we "can't'; refute what you say, if we don't respond with an equal dump-truck load of scripture, or deal with each and every scripture in depth that you have dumped to try an lend weight to your argument. You then claim that what you have written is irrefutable because we don't respond within a time frame of your own choosing. You presume way too much.

And yet, TRUMPING is exactly what was pursued by several PE's just a couple pages back, with Acts13:48. I took the time and trouble to conference with a college professor of Greek --- and he said, "That verse does not go either way." This it is NOT a "trump" for PE.

I will defer to Frumanchu's excellent and thorough drubbing of you on this one. He has quite eloquently shown you that your sources do not say what you want them to say, and that your interpretation of Acts 13:48 cannot be correct. No trumping involved. Just simple, irrefutable Truth.

NAS footnotes, "THAT SALVATION" --- not "that faith".
The professor concurred --- "I would say, THAT FACT."

BY FAITH is a prespositional phrase --- and does not elevate to a second subject. THROUGH GRACE is also a prepositional phrase --- and ALSO is not a second or third or fourth subject.
Exegesis please, not eisegesis; it does not say "comes from the word", it says "comes from HEARING the word". Hearing convicts, conviction gives rise to faith.

Identically in 2Tim3, reading the word gives wisdom, which convicts and causes faith. Nowhere is "salvic-faith" instilled by God.

The verse could just as easily, and with no loss of meaning be stated thusly:

"Ye are saved by Grace through Faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Now, the salvation is not of yourself, and the Grace is not of yourself. What do you suppose the Faith is? Of yourself?? Let's see....Jesus died, not you. God grants the Grace, not you. It is God who births you into the Kingdom, not you. The salvation is not of works, so you can't boast that you had anything to do with it. Since Paul often contrasts faith and works, clearly showing that it is faith that gains God's approval, wouldn't it be just a little bit out of sync to try and insist that the faith which the Grace works though is yours???? It's your's in the sense that God gives it to you for you to use, but its ultimate source is God. Salvation is all of God, and none of you. The only thing man does is receive, which is a passive position. God does ALL the work.

But you cannot support that by Scripture. And all of the verses that speak of "falling from faith" and "falling from steadfastness", you take as "hyperbole/hypothetical/unreal" BECAUSE of your "extra-Biblical-precept". (This is what I mean by "PE twists the Scriptures".) You believe that Jesus berates them for being faithless, all the while knowing that God has MADE them faithless (or if you insist, that God has not made them faithful). But Jesus' rebukes are far more consistent with the idea that "you REFUSE to believe".

Jesus rebukes to them were entirely consistent with one who knows that they should know who He is, and some of them actually DO know who He is, and attempt to suppress it. Yes, they refused to believe, when they knew they should! Jesus had every right to rebuke them for that! Or do you think Jesus was wrong to rebuke the fig tree for not producing fruit when He wanted it? The tree couldn't help it, it was just a fig tree. Yet Jesus rebuked it and cursed it. Seems to me that's His right as Lord....

None of my "Calvinist" brothers are answering my question, because none can; you cannot say "begun in the Spirit" and "running well" were never saved. You cannot say "fallen-from-grace, severed-from-Christ" are STILL saved. You cannot say "the Galatians weren't REAL PEOPLE." I am told to wait for an answer, while many of you go to other message boards and send emails and communications seeking an answer. There is onlyu one answer, NBF; they were saved, then became unsaved.

The "predestined" cannot become unsaved. The "unpredestined" cannot be saved, ever.

We are not predestined to salvation. It's the only coindept that Scripture supports...

Have you ever heard why you shouldn't assume? You should take heed. Do not assume that we cannot answer. Your answer is forthcoming. Not because you threw one so hard that we have to scramble to come up with a defense. We will answer, but one thing that must change is that you must learn to stay on topic and not go running off on a tirade every time you get cornered (and you have been cornered more than once). We will answer things, one at a time. Methodically, and completely. Surgically, if you like. The scattergun approach to this subject will end, Ben, right here.

Maybe you weren't predestined to salvation, Ben, but I was. I feel bad for you if that's the case.....

 

[Chappie]

Let me ask you bluntly simply because your "wonder" seems to imply your belief in such an area:

Are you either an Open Theist or a Middle Knowledge follower?

I am a Christian without any affiliations save Christ. I am a child of God's that has the ability to read and comprehend. I am a child of God that does his best to absorbe everything, and then embrace the good and throw out the bad. I do that with Calvinism, Arminism, and every other "ism" that I can find. My signature says the rest.

"What you personally believe about Reformed Theology is irrelevant".

What is this, a Parable. It reminds me of the old saying concerning the pot and the kettle. We can both judge each other as irrelevant, which would ultimately, if true, render both of us equally irrevelant. So, you see, we gain nothing with this kind of concersation...

It is quite clear from reading your posts that you personally regard our theology as heretical and us as heretics. The question is, apart from your own personal opinion, what synods and councils have pronounced Calvinism as a heresy? It has been my experience that the only ones who have done so are themselves under a heretical pronouncment from nearly the entire confessing orthodox church.

But, really, I do have a curiosity as to why you somehow don't think the gates of Hell have prevailed against the church seeing that you are not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, but aren't a Predestinarian Reformer either. That pretty much leaves you without a heritage and essentially declaring that the gates of hell have prevailed at one time in the history of the church.

No system of theology has it all correct. By attatching ones self to this group, or that group, not only do we inherit the things that they each got right, we inherit the things that they got wrong. The end result is that progress ends up in a standstill.

Progress ends up caught up in the traditions of men, we have the Pharisees all over again.. Now that's if one wants to be a good little one of these, or a good little one of that. No matter what group i attatch myself to, I still have to do my own dying, and dem buggars will give me no assurance that they will stand before God for me on Judgment day.

Proclaiming the Name of Calvin, Spurgeon, Luther, or any of the other church heroes as i stand before God will not help me one bit on that day. Christ is all that i need.

 

[Received]

Quite right. If we define "heresy" as "that point of view that we do not agree with according to our interpretation of scripture", there must be a good deal of heresies running about, given that there are over 33,000 denominations worldwide.

That's lots of fires for the bloodthirsty here.

 

[CCWoody]

Chappie, why are you afraid to answer? Your beliefs about God's Omniscience are directly related to the Predestination topic at hand. I will repeat myself:

Are you either an Open Theist or a Middle Knowledge follower?

 

[Received]

That is, are you an open theist, or an extreme calvinist?

 

[CCWoody]

That's lots of fires for the bloodthirsty here.

Just exactly who are the bloodthirsty here? Chappie has already made it clear that it would be us Calvinists. I'm just a bit curious as to whom you think that would be.

Thanks!

 

[MizDoulos]

The bickering and accusations have continued way past the warning message on page 24; hence, the thread has been closed. Both sides will not change each other's mind and to continue the disharmony is not only breaking the rules but not productive. This has gone on for pages on end. I see no reason to keep the thead open when emotions get out of control. Please move on to another thread or forum.