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.
Sunbeam said:And I missed this, that she was a regular church goer! Do you know what kind of church she went to?
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.rnmomof7 said: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 .
Let me ask you bluntly simply because your "wonder" seems to imply your belief in such an area:Chappie said: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?
Sunbeam said: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".
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.Actually the ability to harden your heart against God was a birthday gift from Adam
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.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
Ben johnson said: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...
Ben Johnson said: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.
Ben johnson said: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.
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.Ben johnson said: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...
Ben johnson said: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.
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.Ben johnson said: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.
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.Ben johnson said: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.
The verse could just as easily, and with no loss of meaning be stated thusly:Ben johnson said: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.
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....Ben johnson said: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".
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.Ben johnson said: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...
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.CCWoody said: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 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..."What you personally believe about Reformed Theology is irrelevant".
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.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.
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.Received said:That's lots of fires for the bloodthirsty here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?