The Tulip is broken

drstevej · Oct 4, 2008

Calvinists preach the gospel knowing that God can and will save as He deems best. They know it is His power that brings life.

A historical account of Whitefield's preaching...

Nathan Cole, a farmer and carpenter of Kensington Parish (now Berlin, Connecticut), lived about 12 miles from Middletown where George Whitefield was to preach on October 23, 1740.

I was in my field at work. I dropped my tool that I had in my hand and ran home to my wife, telling her to make ready quickly to go and hear Mr. Whitefield preach at Middletown. Then I ran to my pasture for my horse with all my might, fearing that I should be too late....

As I came nearer the road, I heard a noise something like a low rumbling thunder and presently found it was the noise of horses' feet coming down the road.... Every horse seemed to go with all his might to carry his rider to hear news from heaven to the saving of souls. It made me tremble....

I turned and looked towards the Great River [i.e., the Connecticut River] and saw the ferry boats running swift backward and forward bringing over loads of people.... The land and banks over the river looked black with people and horses. All along the twelve miles I saw no man at work in his field, but all seemed to be gone.

When I saw Mr. Whitefield come upon the scaffold, he looked almost angelical -- a young, slim, slender youth before some thousands of people with a bold and undaunted countenance. And having heard how God was with him everywhere as he came along, it solemnized my mind and put me into a trembling fear before he began to preach. For he looked as if he was clothed with authority from the Great God, and a sweet solemn solemnity sat upon his brow, and my hearing him preach gave me a heart wound. By God's blessing my old foundation was broken up, and I saw that my righteousness would not save me.

JDS · Oct 4, 2008

Fiollowing is an invitation by Spurgeon in his sermon "Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility". I doubt any of you Calvinists would accept preaching from your own pulpits that agreed with this.

Excerpts:
"But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people." Now, these people whom God had cast away had been wooed, had been sought, had been entreated to be saved; but they would not, and inasmuch as they were not saved, it was the effect of their disobedience and their gainsaying. That lies clearly enough in the text. When God sent the prophets to Israel, and stretched forth his hands, what was it for? What did he wish, thein to come to him for? Why, to be saved. "No," says one, "it was for temporal mercies." Not so, my friend; the verse before is concerning spiritual mercies, and so is this one, for they refer to the same thing. Now, was God sincere in his offer? God forgive the man that dares to say he was not. God is undoubtedly sincere in every act he did. He sent his prophets, he entreated the people of Israel to lay hold on spiritual things, but they would not, and though he stretched out his hands all the day long, yet they were "a disobedient and gainsaying people," and would not have his love; and on their head rests their blood.
Now let me notice the wooing of God and of what sort it is. First, it was the most affectionate wooing in the world. Lost sinners who sit under the sound of the gospel are not lost for the want of the most affectionate invitation. God says he stretched out his hands. You know what that means. You have seen the child who is disobedient and will not come to his father. The father puts out his hands, and says, "Come, my child, come; I am ready to forgive you." The tear is in his eye, and his bowels move with compassion, and he says, "Come, come." God says this is what he did"he stretched out his hands." That is what he has done to some of you. You that are not saved to-day are without excuse, for God stretched out his hands to you, and he said, "Come, come." Long have you sat beneath the sound of the ministry, and it has been a faithful one, I trust, and a weeping one. Your minister has not forgotten to pray for your souls in secret or to weep over you when no eye saw him, and he has endeavoured to persuade you as an ambassador from God. God is my witness, I have sometimes stood in this pulpit, and I could not have pleaded harder for my own life than I have pleaded with you. In Christ's name, I have cried, "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." I have wept over you as the Saviour did, and used his words on his behalf, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not." And you know that your conscience has often been touched; you have often been moved; you could not resist it. God was so kind to you; he invited you so affectionately by the Word; he dealt so gently with you by his providence; his hands were stretched out, and you could hear his voice speaking in your ears, "Come unto me, come: come now, let us reason together; though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as wool; though they be red like crimson they shall be whiter than snow." You have heard him cry, "Ho every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters." You have heard him say with all the affection of a father's heart, "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him turn unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and unto our God, for he will abundantly pardon." Oh! God does plead with men that they would be saved, and this day he says to every one of you, "Repent, and be converted for the remission of your sins. Turn ye unto me. Thus saith the Lord of hosts; consider your ways." And with love divine he woos you as a father woos his child, putting out his hands and crying, "Come unto me, come unto me." "No," says one strong-doctrine man, "God never invites all men to himself; he invites none but certain characters." Stop, sir, that is all you know about it. Did you ever read that parable where it is said, My oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready; come unto the marriage." And they that were bidden would not come. And did you never read that they all began to make excuse, and that they were punished because they did not accept the invitations. Now, if the invitation is not to be made to anybody, but to the man who will accept it, how can that parable be true? The fact is, the oxen and fatlings are killed; the wedding feast is ready, and the trumpet sounds, "Ho every one that thirsteth, come and eat, come and drink." Here are the provisions spread, here is an all-sufficiency; the invitation is free; it is a great invitation. "Whosoever will, let him come and take of the water of life freely." And that invitation is couched in tender words, "Come to me, my child, come to me." "All day long I have stretched forth my hands."
And note again, this invitation was very frequent. The words, "all the day long," may be translated "daily""Daily have I stretched forth my hands." Sinner, God has not called you once to come, and then let you alone, but every day has he been at you; every day has conscience spoken to you; every day has providence warned you, and every Sabbath has the Word of God wooed you. Oh! how much some of you will have to account for at God's great bar! I cannot now read your characters, but I know there are some of you who will have a terrible account at last. All the day long has God been wooing you. From the first dawn of your life, he wooed you through your mother, and she used to put your little hands together, and teach you to say,

....My second exhortation is,Sinners, I beseech every one of you who are unconverted and ungodly, this morning to put away every form and fashion of excuse that the devil would have you make concerning your being unconverted. Remember, that all the teaching in the world can never excuse you for being enemies to God by wicked works. When we beseech you to be reconciled to him, it is because we know you will never be in your proper place until you are reconciled. God has made you; can it be right that you should disobey him? God feeds you every day: can it be right that you should still live in disobedience to him? Remember, when the heavens shall be on a blaze, when Christ shall come to judge the earth in righteousness and his people with equity, there will not be one excuse that you can make which will be valid at the last great day. If you should attempt to say, "Lord, I have never heard the word;" his answer would be, "Thou didst hear it; thou heardest it plainly." "But Lord, I had an evil will." "Out of thine own mouth will I condemn thee; thou hadst that evil will, and I condemn thee for it. This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." "But Lord," some will say, "I was not predestinated." "What hadst thou to do with that? Thou didst; do according to thine own will when thou didst rebel. Thou wouldest not come unto me, and now I destroy thee for ever. Thou hast broken my lawon thine own head be the guilt." If a sinner could say at the great day, "Lord, I could not be saved anyhow his torment in hell would be mitigated by that thought: but this shall be the very edge of the sword, and the very burning of the fire"Ye knew your duty and ye did it not: ye trampled on everything that was holy; ye neglected the Saviour, and how shall ye escape if ye neglect so great salvation?"
Now, with regard to myself; you may some of you go away and say, that I was Antinomian in the first part of the sermon and Arminian at the end. I care not. I beg of you to search the Bible for yourselves. To the law and to the testimony; if I speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in me. I am willing to come to that test. Have nothing to do with me where I have nothing to do with Christ. Where I separate from the truth, cast my words away. But if what I say be God's teaching, I charge you, by him that sent me, give these things your thoughts, and turn unto the Lord with all your hearts.

Now, if one reads the whole message he will see that Mr Spurgeon was very conflicted in his doctrine of God but the invitation he gives here is a so called "arminian" invitation that the sinner has a responsibility to come and will be judged and condemned for not coming. The conflict Spurgeon had is that he wanted it both ways and trying to preach it that way made him look foolish. In this manner he is a great man in both camps but I fear he has earned few rewards with God for it.

Van · Oct 4, 2008

The TULIP is broken.

Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22.
Unconditional election to salvation is demonstrated false by James 2:5.
Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2.
Irresistible Grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

And in this very thread, a new shard has been uncovered. The Calvinist doctrine that men cannot be led astray is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

drstevej · Oct 4, 2008

James 2:5 ???

So the "you" is a reference to unbelievers asking for faith "in faith"?

Van this is outrageous eisegesis. You can do better, I'm sure.

Van · Oct 4, 2008

Personal incredulity is the stock and trade of the defense of Calvinism. Mock - this is outrageous - and scratch one's head - James 2:5???. That is all they have folks.

The TULIP is broken.

Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22.
Unconditional election to salvation is demonstrated false by James 2:5.
Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2.
Irresistible Grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

And in this very thread, a new shard has been uncovered. The Calvinist doctrine that men cannot be led astray is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

drstevej · Oct 4, 2008

Van said:
And in this very thread, a new shard has been uncovered. The Calvinist doctrine that men cannot be led astray is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

A Vanist Hymnal Sing-a-Long

Pharisaical Clout, how strong those boys,
They tricked a dupe like me....
I once was close but by their ploys,
Now blind, I once did see.

nobdysfool · Oct 4, 2008

Rep Daddy said:
A Vanist Hymnal Sing-a-Long

Pharisaical Clout, how strong those boys,
They tricked a dupe like me....
I once was close but by their ploys,
Now blind, I once did see.

LOL!!!

Van · Oct 4, 2008

Mock mock mock, but offer no rebuttal.
Matthew 23:13 teaches us of folks who were entering heaven, yet were turned aside by false doctrine.
Matthew 18:6 teaches that those who cause a little one to stumble will be harshly punished in the afterlife.

The TULIP is broken.

Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22.
Unconditional election to salvation is demonstrated false by James 2:5.
Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2.
Irresistible Grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

And in this very thread, a new shard has been uncovered. The Calvinist doctrine that men cannot be led astray is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

nobdysfool · Oct 4, 2008

Insanity: Doing or saying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

drstevej · Oct 4, 2008

I already rebutted it. It is silly eisegesis. A fanciful stretch to crow that you've broken the tulip.

The Calvinist doctrine that men cannot be led astray

WRONG, that is not Calvinist doctrine.

frumanchu · Oct 4, 2008

Van said:
Mock mock mock, but offer no rebuttal.
Matthew 23:13 teaches us of folks who were entering heaven, yet were turned aside by false doctrine.
Matthew 18:6 teaches that those who cause a little one to stumble will be harshly punished in the afterlife.

The TULIP is broken.

Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22.
Unconditional election to salvation is demonstrated false by James 2:5.
Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2.
Irresistible Grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

And in this very thread, a new shard has been uncovered. The Calvinist doctrine that men cannot be led astray is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

Notice that the Anti-Calvinist offers no proof of his BLATANT LIE. He simply repeats the BLATANT LIE over and over again and then mocks as always.

Matthew 13:20-22 has been shown to not say what the Anti-Calvinist desperately needs it to. Likewise with Matthew 23:13 and 1 John 2:2.

The Anti-Calvinist claims that Calvinists believe men cannot be led astray. This is a BLATANT LIE as no Calvinist believes such a thing.

Rebuttal is offered time and again, but rather than acknowledge and address, it's mock and repeat, mock and repeat, mock and repeat...

Such is the tactic of the Anti-Calvinist, who bears false witness against men in his zeal to attack Calvinism at all costs. Watch carefully...he will continue with more of the same.

QED

Van · Oct 4, 2008

Yet another non-rebuttal with claims of what has been shown in the unreferenced past. Again personal incredulity is offered in rebuttal, the old Matthew 13:20-22 does not say what it says argument. Does it say they received the gospel with joy? Yes. If a person hated God would they receive the gospel with joy? No. So they did not hate God, but instead were seeking God. QED

Next I am charged with presenting a "blatant lie" and mocking. I kid you not, that was the charge.

Next, the Calvinists say men can be led astray in this post, but in another post they questioned the idea that a Pharisee could block entry into heaven with false doctrine, mockingly calling the idea proxy responsibility. Apparently they now disavow the argument.

They deny that a person can believe before they are born again, yet Matthew 13:20-22 tells us of folks who were not born again receiving the gospel with joy. Sounds like they believed in God and were seeking His righteousness before they were born again.

They deny that a non-born again believer would be entering heaven, yet Matthew 23:13 tells us of non-born again believers entering heaven.

The TULIP is broken .

drstevej · Oct 4, 2008

Van said:
Next, the Calvinists say men can be led astray in this post, but in another post they questioned the idea that a Pharisee could block entry into heaven with false doctrine, mockingly calling the idea proxy responsibility. Apparently they now disavow the argument.

Led astray and blocked from entering heaven are not the same.

"For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect."

Mark 13:22

The clear implication is it is not possible.

So your argument is Pharisees can do what False Christs and False Prophets can not do.

Taint right, Van. Your doctrine mocks the grace and power of God.

DeaconDean · Oct 4, 2008

Rep Daddy said:
Led astray and blocked from entering heaven are not the same.

"For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect."

Mark 13:22

The clear implication is it is not possible.

So your argument is Pharisees can do what False Christs and False Prophets can not do.

Taint right, Van. Your doctrine mocks the grace and power of God.

Yep! I agree. If you don't believe as does Van, you not going to heaven. Calvinism is a "false religion" much like what the Pharisees said about the religion being built around that man called Jesus. It was a false religion also. Just like the Pharisees. They close up the door to heaven, they can't get in themselves, but yet they don't allow anyone else to enter either.

Don't ya just love the Gospel of Matthew according to Van?

You know, it is very funny that Van points out three verses from this text that "fit" his view, all the while completely ignoring two critical verses just prior to this.

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." -Mt. 13:10-11 (KJV)

The commentary at biblegateway.com says:

In the intervening section (vv. 10-17) Jesus emphasizes that only his inner circle will understand, because the parables make sense only in the context of Jesus' ministry.

Here in Mt. 13, Jesus is speaking in generalities, not specifics.

Specifically, Jesus said:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." -Jn. 16:13 (KJV)

God told Jeremiah:

"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it." -Jer. 6:10 (KJV)

This same principle is repeated in Acts.

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." -Acts 7:51 (KJV)

I would like to know, how a person can receive the word in their ears, let alone in the heart, if the ears and heart are not uncircumcised first.

Hum...

Van also said:

Sounds like they believed in God and were seeking His righteousness before they were born again.

But what Van leaves out of his explaination is these facts also.

What does verses 21-22 teach:

"Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful."

Why did these individuals become unfruitful and become offended and fall away?

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." -Rom. 8:14 (KJV)

They were not Spirit led people. These are individuals, like the ones Van espouses, come to God of their own "free will." They chose to come God. They chose of their own free will to believe. They weren't led by the Spirit. And if you are not led by the Spirit, your no better than the man who built his house upon the sand. (cf. Mt. 7:26)

You may come to God of your own "free will," and for a season, it may be joyous, but because out of your own "free will" you decided to chose to believe, you will ultimately fail.

Why? Because Jesus specifically said:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:" -Jn. 6:44 (KJV)

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." -Jn. 12:32 (KJV)

Anytime you cut the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit out of the equation, and chose of your own "free will" to believe, then your work, will fail. Its doomed from the start. And why is that? Because its built on own your work and not the work of the Spirit.

Those individuals spoken of in Mt. 13:20-22, only show and prove that they were not "born-again", "gennhqh" from above. They were not drawn by the Spirit. They had not had their ears and hearts uncircumsised. It was based on their own doings, therfore, they become offended, and they get choked out and become unfruitful.

The Apostle Paul also taught:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith," -Gal. 5:22 (KJV)

Strange that Jesus forgot to mention the fruits of the Spirit in these people (Mt. 13:20-22).

Hum...

And Mt. 13:20-22 only shows that it was a false belief to begin with.

If a set of plans calls for a wall 30' long, and you cut the first piece of wood 29' 11" long, then the wall is going to be off from the start. The "cornerstone" is set wrongly, therfore, it will throw the rest of the building out of square.

The same principle here.

A kid given a new toy. It wonderful, its new, its fun, for a while. Then they get bored with it, it sits and is left neglected.

Jesus specifically said that you must be born again (gennhqh) first. And there is absolutely no evidence that they had been given ears to hear. A clean heart. A right spirit. Nor is there any evidence of ever being born again.

Plain and simple.

Another Vanism. Everything is built on their choice, their own free will.

That is why they failed.

Van is like Luke Skywalker: I don't believe it!

Yoda: That is why you fail.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Van · Oct 4, 2008

More nonsense. LOL

Now being led astray is not the same as being blocked from entering. Ludicrous.

Next, the straw man, arguing against the idea that a born again person can loose their salvation. Of course not, but this is a bunny trail having nothing to do with the topic.
Evasion.

Next the idea that the actions used to control the timing of Christ's revelation somehow support the Calvinist view. LOL The reason Jesus talked in parables was because the unregenerate can understand and respond appropriately and be healed, or the exact opposite of Calvinist false doctrine.

Next they offer those who have no delight in God's word as being applicable to those who receive the gospel with joy. LOL Recall, the four soils. They point to soil number one and claim soils number 2 and 3 and 4 do not exist. Nonsense.

Next another evasion, they were seeking God so total spiritual inability is false doctrine.

Next the Calvinist deny that God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness. But Romans 4:4-5 is crystal.

Jesus did not say a person must be born again to believe, but He did say a person must believe to be born again, John 1:12-13.

Nothing is built on the free will of men, but salvation is the free gift of God to those who believe. If God credits a person's faith in Christ as righteousness, God saves them. Pretty simple.

DeaconDean · Oct 4, 2008

Van said:
More nonsense. LOL

Now being led astray is not the same as being blocked from entering. Ludicrous.

Next, the straw man, arguing against the idea that a born again person can loose their salvation. Of course not, but this is a bunny trail having nothing to do with the topic.
Evasion.

Next the idea that the actions used to control the timing of Christ's revelation somehow support the Calvinist view. LOL The reason Jesus talked in parables was because the unregenerate can understand and respond appropriately and be healed, or the exact opposite of Calvinist false doctrine.

Next they offer those who have no delight in God's word as being applicable to those who receive the gospel with joy. LOL Recall, the four soils. They point to soil number one and claim soils number 2 and 3 and 4 do not exist. Nonsense.

Next another evasion, they were seeking God so total spiritual inability is false doctrine.

Next the Calvinist deny that God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness. But Romans 4:4-5 is crystal.

Jesus did not say a person must be born again to believe, but He did say a person must believe to be born again, John 1:12-13.

Nothing is built on the free will of men, but salvation is the free gift of God to those who believe. If God credits a person's faith in Christ as righteousness, God saves them. Pretty simple.

More Vanisms.

You know Van, there is a difference in believing in something, and having faith.

Simon Magnus in Acts 8 believed and went as far as being baptized, but was not saved.

The Bible says that the demons "believe" and tremble. Because they believe that there is a man named Jesus, I guess by your reasoning, that makes them saved.

Hum...

According to John L. Dagg:

Various forms of expression are employed in the Scriptures, to denote the change of heart; and they signify it with various shades of meaning.. It is taking away the heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh;[122] giving a new heart;[123] putting the law in the heart;[124] quickening or making alive;[125] a resurrection from the dead; an illumination;[126] a conversion, or turning back to God.[127] So great is the change produced, that the subject of it is called a new creature,[128] as if proceeding, like Adam, directly from the creating hand of God; and he is said to be renewed,[129] as being restored to the image of God, in which man was originally formed. With reference to the mode in which the descendants of Adam come into the world, the change is denominated regeneration;[130] and the subjects of it are said to be born again.[131]

[122] Ezek. xxxvi. 26.

[123] Ezek. xviii. 31.

[124] Heb. viii. 10.

[125] John vi. 63; Eph. ii. 1; Rom. vi. 11, 13.

[126] Heb. x. 32.

[127] Ps. li. 13; Matt. xviii. 3; Ps. xxv. 16; Isaiah lix. 20.

[128] 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15.

[129] Col. iii. 10; Rom. xii. 2; Tit. iii. 5.

[130] Tit. iii. 5.

[131] John iii. 3, 7; 1 Pet. i. 23.

John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, Book 7, Chapter 4, Regeneration.

http://www.freegrace.net/library/dagg/bk7c3.html#sec4

Lets look at this logically.

1) Prove to me that Simon Magnus was a Christian in the first place. It is just my humble opinion, but I am assuming that they are considering that he was a Christian because it says:

"Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized," -Acts 8:13 (KJV)

Just because one believes and is baptized, does not necessarily mean they are saved. Does not the Bible also teach:

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." -Jas. 2:19 (KJV)

For more examples, I refer you to the parable of the sower.

Now, prove to me that Simon Magnus was saved in the first place.

2) Seeing the Apostle Peter laying on of hands and the Holy Spirit coming on believers, Simon says:

"And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." -Acts 8:18-19 (KJV)

If as the CoC teach, you are saved and baptized, then you would have the Holy Spirit upon you. (cf. Acts 2:38) Here we see very clearly that Simon Magnus does have the Holy Spirit residing in him. For he thought the Holy Spirit was some sort of "magical power" that could be bought. He clearly had not been "enlightened." All I see is a man who wanted more "magical power" to influence the crowds with.

3) Peter rebukes him saying:

"Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." -Acts 8:20-23 (KJV)

According to John L. Dagg, regeneration includes:

taking away the heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh; giving a new heart; an illumination;

Now, as I read the scriptures, several things jump right out at me. One of the evidences of regeneration is being given a "new heart." (cf. Psa. 51:10; Eze. 36:26) Peter flatly tells Simon that his heart is not right before God. Clearly Simon had not experienced regeneration.

Peter tells him that he is wicked and "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." Further proof that Simon had not been saved in the first place., neither did he really repent.

John L. Dagg also says:

We know, from the Holy Scriptures, that God employs his truth in the regeneration of the soul. "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth."[135] Love to God necessarily implies knowledge of God, and this knowledge it is the province of truth to impart. But knowledge is not always connected with love. The devils know, but do not love; and wicked men delight not to retain the knowledge of God,[136] because their knowledge of him is not connected with love.

[135] James i. 18.

[136] Rom. i. 28

Ibid

We see here that Simon had no knowledge either. No knowledge of God, no knowledge of the Holy Spirit neither.

So I submit to you that Simon Magnus was not saved in the first place. Neither was he a "Christain." Scriptures proved that he was saved to start with. He hadn't had the change of heart, and because he was the bondage of iniquity, this just further proves that Simon Magnus was not saved not could be considered a Christian to begin with.

Oh, but according to Van, believe and you'll be saved.

There is a difference in believing something, and having faith. Simon Magnus might have believed the historical facts about Jesus, there was a man named Jesus, He did some miracles, healed some sick, rasied some dead, but by the same reasoning, so did the apostles. He might have "believed" (episteusen), but, since when is beliving equated with faith?

There are two words used in the NT that describe beliving, one has to do with mere intellectual knowledge, and one that has Jesus Christ as its object.

James Petigru Boyce teaches:

The noun pistis and the verb pisteuo are used in each of these senses in the scripture, and also in the two unitedly; (1.) as to mere belief of the truth either savingly or otherwise. 2 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 10:39; John 2:22; John 5:46; Acts 26:27; Jas. 2:19.
(2.) In the sense of reliance.
John 2:24. "Jesus did not trust himself unto them."
John 7:5. "For even his brethren did not believe in him."
2 Tim. 1:12. "I know him whom I have believed."
1 John 4:1. "Beloved, believe not every spirit."
(3.) But the almost invariable usage of the New Testament includes both elements, the belief of a person and of the facts about him, and reliance upon them and him for salvation.
The difference between these three forms of belief is apparent.
1. Mere belief may be weak and motiveless, and thus it may result in indifference as to action; or it may be a mere opinion, the holding or not holding of which is not felt to be a matter of consequence; or it may be a mere notion taken up without sufficient evidence.
2. Mere trust in a person or thing, may result from confidence in the word of another, or in the actions of others, or from something in our experience teaching us that we may venture, though we know no reason why we should thus trust. Thus some one tells us that this is the train we wish to take--or we go over a bridge over which others have gone--or we ford a stream through which we see by tracks that others have driven. Here our trust is much more, if not altogether, in the testimony of others than in any knowledge of, or confidence in that to which we commit ourselves.
It is only through the combination of the two that we have faith, which must be an intelligent trust. By it we believe not only in him upon whom we trust, but we do so because we believe the facts which make him trustworthy.
Hence it is that the Scriptures use it in the twofold sense, uniting the two ideas in the case of believers in Christ, because not only do they rely upon Jesus, but, from the belief of the facts concerning him taught in God's word; they know whom they have believed, and why they should believe him.
Christian faith, therefore, is personal reliance upon Christ for salvation because of belief of God's testimony as to our sinful and ruined condition, and as to what Christ has assuredly done to save us. It is based, therefore, upon the knowledge of this testimony as given by our own consciences and the word of God. It is consequently an act of the mind. As the truth thus apprehended is spiritual, so it is apprehended spiritually by the heart. As it occurs in the heart of a sinner, so it must be the act of a regenerated heart which alone is inclined to such belief as constitutes trust. And it is attained by this heart through the illuminating influences of the Spirit of God...

2. Historical faith. This is a mere intellectual belief of the truths taught in the Scriptures as historical facts; as that there was such a person as Jesus, who, being the Son of God, wrought out salvation and has now commanded all men to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

One fact that favours the substitution of this for the faith which trusts in Christ with the heart, is that in the apostolic days, such was the danger of professing Christ that none would be apt to do so, who did not heartily believe in him. Another is that as the new religion presented itself in salient points in opposition to the old, the acceptance of these points could be due only to a heartfelt belief in Jesus. Hence the language of 1 John 4:15, "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God," and other similar passages.
Fortunately, however, we have sufficient teaching to show what is the true faith.
There is the case of Simon Magus, Acts 8:13-24. Manifestly he had historical faith, and yet the Apostle is led to say of him, verse 21, "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." The case of Judas also is one of bare historical faith.
That faith, however, is a work of the heart, is manifest from the following passages:
Acts 2:37. "They were pricked in their heart."
Rom. 10:8-10. "Shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, * * * with the heart man believeth unto righteousness."
See an illustration of the difference between historical faith and hearty acceptance of the truth in John 12:42, 43 and Rom. 10:16-21.
2 Cor. 3:3. "In tables that are hearts of flesh," also verse 6, "the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."
Heb. 10:22. "Let us draw near with a true heart."
2 Tim. 2:22. Christians are described as those who "call on the Lord out of a pure heart."
It is also proved by all we have seen of the necessity and nature of Regeneration, Conversion and Repentance. Hodge, [Outlines, p. 473,] gives this further proof from the effects of faith. "The Scriptures declare that by faith the Christian `embraces the promises,' `is persuaded of the promises,' `out of weakness is made strong,' `waxes valiant in fight,' `confesses himself a stranger and pilgrim seeking a better country.'" As faith in a threatening necessarily involves fear, so faith in a promise necessarily involves trust. "Besides, faith rests upon the trustworthiness of God and, therefore, necessarily involves trust. Heb. 10:23 and the whole 11th chapter."

Abstract of Systematic Theology, Chapter 34, Faith

Link

We see nothing but a simple "believing" of the people in Mt. 13:20-22, and not "faith" (pistis) that is spoken of true believers.

More Vanisms.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean · Oct 5, 2008

Lets take a look at that one word on which all of Van's exposition hinges.

"lambanwn" (received) - "to take, take up, take in the hand, Mt. 13:38; 13:31,33, et al; to take on one's self, sustain, Mt. 8:17; to take, seize, seize upon, Mt. 5:40;21:34; Lk. 5:26; 1 Cor. 10:13, et al; to catch, Lk. 5:5; 2 Cor. 12:16; to assume, put on, Phil. 2:7; to make a right or successful assumption of, Jn. 3:27; to conceive, Acts 28:15; to take by way of provision, Mt. 16:9; to receive as payment, Mt. 17:24; Heb. 7:8; to take to wife, Mk. 12:19; to admit, give reception to, Jn. 6:21; 2 Jn. 3:11, et al; metp. to give mental reception to, Jn. 3:11 et al; to be simple receipt of, to receive, Mt. 7:8; Jn. 7:23, 39; 19:30; Acts 10:43; in NT lambanein peiran, to make encounter of a matter of difficulty or trial, Heb. 11:29, 36; archn labousa, to begin, Heb. 2:3; farisaioi sumboulion, to take council, consult, Mt. 12:14; lambanein lhqhn, to forget, 2 Pet. 1:9; lambanein upomnhsin, to recollect, call to mind, 2 Tim. 1:5; lambanein peritomhn, to receive circumcision, be circumcised, Jn. 7:23; lambanein katallaghn, to be reconciled, Rom. 5:11; lambanein krima, to receieve condemnation or punishemnt, be punished, Mk. 12:40; from the Hebrew, proswpon lambanein, to accept the person of any one, show partiality towards, Lk. 20:21"

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Westley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, lambanw, p. 253

Show me in this, where those individuals "received" Jesus, "received" the word in truth, with Christ as its object.

They might have "taken up" the teachings, but that is not the same as living by them. They might have taken on ones self, the word, but here again, there is nothing to infer any more than an intellectual knowledge here. They surely did not seize upom the truths. They might have assumed, but we all know what happens when you assume something.

Again, let me quote from Boyce:

Temporary or delusive faith. This has many marks of a true faith. Hence it is not only the intellectual reception of historical facts, but a joyful acceptance of them. This is the case of the seed in the stony places which represents the man that heareth the word and anon with joy receiveth it. But the parable teaches us that the soil was not prepared. It is, therefore, not in the regenerated heart that it arises. The evidence of its temporary character, therefore, will soon appear. It lacks the following characteristics of saving faith and may thus be distinguished from it:

(1.) Continuance in trusting Christ, and in devotion to him and his service.
(2.) Desire to be useful in the work of Christ.
(3.) Attendance to Christian duty.
(4.) Love of prayer and the word of God, and of the meetings with his people for worship.
(5.) Devoted love to the children of God as such.
(6.) Progress in knowledge of self and sin, and of Christ as a Saviour. (7.) Progress in loving holiness and hating sin, with increased conviction of, and humility concerning sinfulness.

Ibid

Robert Dabney taught:

If we make faith nothing but simple belief, we are unable to give a satisfactory account of the difference between historical and saving faith. Chalmers, in the summary of his 6th chapter as good as acknowledges this. But surely that must be a defective theory, which makes it impossible to see a difference, where yet, it admits, a substantial difference exists! Some would get out of the difficulty by denying that, in strictness of speech, there is any historical faith where there is not saving faith—i. e., by denying that such persons truly believe, even with the understanding. Many candid sinners will declare that their consciousness contradicts this. Says Dr. Alexander, the historical faith does not differ in that it believes different propositions; but in that it believes them with a different and inferior grasp of conviction, I would ask, first, whether this statement does not give countenance to that radical Arminian error, which makes saving differ from temporary faith, only in degree, and not in kind? And I would remark, next: This is a singular desertion of a part of the strength of his own position, (although we believe that position includes only a part of the truth.)

The Scriptures describe faith by almost every imaginable active figure. It is a "looking," (Is. 45:22) a "receiving," (John 1:12-13) an "eating" of Him, (John 6:54), a "coming," (John 5:40), an "embracing," (Heb. 11:13,) a "fleeing unto, and laying hold of," (Heb. 6:18,) etc. Here it may be added, that every one of the illustrations of faith in Heb. 11(whose first verse some quote as against me) come up to the Apostle’s description in the 13th verse, containing an active element of trust and choice, as well as the mental one of belief.

The manner in which faith and repentance are coupled together in Scripture plainly shows that, as faith is implicitly present in repentance, so repentance is implicitly in faith. But if so, this gives to faith an active character. (Mark 1:15; Matt. 21:32; 2 Tim. 2:25).

The special object of saving faith is Christ the Redeemer, and the promises of grace in Him. By this, we do not mean that any true believer will willfully and knowingly reject any of the other propositions of God’s word. For the same habit of faith, or disposition of holy assent and obedience to God’s authority, which causes the embracing of gospel propositions, will cause the embracing of all others, as fast as their evidence becomes known. But we mean that in justifying faith, Christ and His grace is the object immediately before the believer’s mind; and that if he have a saving knowledge of this, but be ignorant of all the rest of the gospel, he may still be saved by believing this. The evidences are, that the gospel is so often spoken of as the object of faith; [but this is about Christ]; e. g., Mark 16:15-16; Eph. 1:13; Mark 1:15; Rom. 1:16, 17; et passim. That believing on Christ is so often mentioned as the sole condition, and that, to men who must probably have been ignorant of many heads of divinity; e. g., Acts 16:31; John 3:18; 6:40; Rom. 10:9, etc. The same thing may be argued from the experiences of Bible saints) who represent themselves as fixing their eyes specially on Christ. 1 Tim. 1:15, etc., and from the two sacraments of faith, which point immediately to Jesus Christ. Still, this special faith is, in its habitus , a principle of hearty consent to all God’s holy truth, as fast as it is apprehended as His. Faith embraces Christ substantially in all His offices. This must be urged, as of prime practical importance. Owen has in one place very incautiously said, that saving faith in its first movement embraces Christ only in His priestly, or propitiatory work. This teaching is far too common, at least by implication, in our pulpits. Its result is "temporary" faith, which embraces Christ for impunity only, instead of deliverance from sin. Our Catechism defines faith, as embracing Christ "as He is offered to us in the gospel." Our Confession (chap. xiv., section 2), says: "the principle acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification and eternal life." How Christ is offered to us in the gospel, may be seen in Matthew 1:21; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 5:25-27; Titus. 2:14. The tendency of human selfishness is ever to degrade Christ’s sacrifice into a mere expedient for bestowing impunity. The pastor can never be too explicit in teaching that this is a travesty of the gospel; and that no one rises above the faith of the stony ground hearer, until he desires and embraces Christ as a deliverer from depravity and sin, as well as hell.

Robert Dabney, Systematic Theology, Chapter 11, Faith

Link

No where in the text can it be inferred that these people received nothing more than an intellectual knowledge. They have the same marks as Simon Magnus. They may look saved, they may sound saved, but they are not saved.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." -1 Jn. 2:19 (KJV)

Try again Van.

As Dr. Zaius said in "The Planet of the Apes:"

Keep digging, Cornelius. You'll find evidence of the master of this house

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean · Oct 5, 2008

Lets just give things the benefit of the doubt.

Lets look and see if there is any way we can see that those spoken of in Mt. 13:20-22 "believed" or had "faith".

Lets give the definition of receive again:

"lambanwn" (received) - "to take, take up, take in the hand, Mt. 13:38; 13:31,33, et al; to take on one's self, sustain, Mt. 8:17; to take, seize, seize upon, Mt. 5:40;21:34; Lk. 5:26; 1 Cor. 10:13, et al; to catch, Lk. 5:5; 2 Cor. 12:16; to assume, put on, Phil. 2:7; to make a right or successful assumption of, Jn. 3:27; to conceive, Acts 28:15; to take by way of provision, Mt. 16:9; to receive as payment, Mt. 17:24; Heb. 7:8; to take to wife, Mk. 12:19; to admit, give reception to, Jn. 6:21; 2 Jn. 3:11, et al; metp. to give mental reception to, Jn. 3:11 et al; to be simple receipt of, to receive, Mt. 7:8; Jn. 7:23, 39; 19:30; Acts 10:43; in NT lambanein peiran, to make encounter of a matter of difficulty or trial, Heb. 11:29, 36; archn labousa, to begin, Heb. 2:3; farisaioi sumboulion, to take council, consult, Mt. 12:14; lambanein lhqhn, to forget, 2 Pet. 1:9; lambanein upomnhsin, to recollect, call to mind, 2 Tim. 1:5; lambanein peritomhn, to receive circumcision, be circumcised, Jn. 7:23; lambanein katallaghn, to be reconciled, Rom. 5:11; lambanein krima, to receieve condemnation or punishemnt, be punished, Mk. 12:40; from the Hebrew, proswpon lambanein, to accept the person of any one, show partiality towards, Lk. 20:21"

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Westley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, lambanw, p. 253

"But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful." -Mt. 13:20-22 (KJV)

Now Van said:

Matthew 13:20-22 tells us of folks who were not born again receiving the gospel with joy. Sounds like they believed in God and were seeking His righteousness before they were born again.

What are the key words here?

peiqw - believe - to persuade, seek to persuade, endeavor to convince, Acts 18:4; 19:8, 26; 28:23; to persuade, influence by persuasion, Mt. 27:20; Acts 13:43; 26:28; to incite, instigate, Acts 14:19; to appease, render tranquil, to quiet, 1 Jn. 3:19; to strive to conciliate, aspire to the favor of, Gal. 1:10; to pacify, conciliate, win over, Mt. 28:14; Acts 12:20; pass. and mid, to be persuaded of, be confident of, Lk. 20:6; Rom. 8:38; Heb. 6:9; to suffer one's self to be persuaded, yeild to persuasion, to be induced, Acts 21:14; to be convinced, to believe, yield belief, Lk. 16:31; Acts 17:4; to assent, listen to, obey, follow, Acts 5:36-37,40; 2 perf. pepoiqa to be assured, be confident, 2 Cor. 2:3; Phil. 1:6; Heb. 13:18; to confide in, trust, rely on, place hope and confidence in, Mt. 27:43; Mk. 10:24; Rom. 2:19

Ibid, p. 317

Nope, I don't see where those individuals "believed" in Mt. 13:20-22.

Perhaps they "believed."

pisteuw, - believe - to believe, give credit to, Mk. 1:15; 16:13; Lk. 24:25; intrans. to believe, have a mental persuasion, Mt. 8:13; 9:28; Jas. 2:19; to believe, be of opinion, Rom. 14:2; in NT pisteuein en eiV, epi, to believe in or on, Mt. 18:6; 27:42; Jn. 3:15-16,18; absol. to believe, be a believer in the religion of Christ, Acts 2:44; 4:4, 32; 13:48; trans. to intrust, commit to the charge of or power of, Lk. 16:11; Jn. 2:24; pass. to be intrusted with, Rom. 3:2; 1 Cor. 9:17

Ibid, p. 329

Nope, I still see no evidence of beliving here either.

Perhaps they had "faith".

pistoV - faith - faithful, true, trusty, Mt. 24:25; 25:21, 23; Lk. 12:42; 2 Tim. 2:2; put in trust, 1 Cor. 7:25; true, veracious, Rev. 1:5; 2:13; credible, sure, certain, indubitable, Acts 13:34; 1 Tim. 1:15; believing, yeilding belief and confidence, Jn. 20:27; Gal. 3:9; spc. a Christian believer, Acts 10:45; 16:1, 15; 2 Cor. 6:15; piston, in true-hearted manner, right-mindely, 3 Jn. 5

Ibid, p. 329

Nope, I see no evidence of any of these in Mt. 13:20-22.

Better try again Van.

So, I repeat:

As Dr. Zaius said in "The Planet of the Apes:"

Keep digging, Cornelius. You'll find evidence of the master of this house

God Bless

Till all are one.

Will the T.U.L.I.P. be unbroken,
By and by Lord, by and by.
There's a better home awaiting,
In the sky Lord in the sky!

Adapted from: Will The Circle Be Unbroken, Stanly Brothers.

The T.U.L.I.P. doctrine has sttod the test of time, better and more educated men than Van have tried to defeat it, with no luck.

Its still here. And in 1000 years, provided Jesus does not return between now and then, it'll still be here.

Reminds me of what is said here:

"Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel,..And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." -Acts 5:34, 38-39 (KJV)

cygnusx1 · Oct 5, 2008

JDS said:
JDS said:

Fiollowing is an invitation by Spurgeon in his sermon "Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility". I doubt any of you Calvinists would accept preaching from your own pulpits that agreed with this.

Click to expand...

i would , it's the truth.

Now, if one reads the whole message he will see that Mr Spurgeon was very conflicted in his doctrine of God but the invitation he gives here is a so called "arminian" invitation that the sinner has a responsibility to come and will be judged and condemned for not coming. The conflict Spurgeon had is that he wanted it both ways and trying to preach it that way made him look foolish. In this manner he is a great man in both camps but I fear he has earned few rewards with God for it.

Click to expand...

you are mistaken , it is NOT Arminian at all , where does Spurgeon mention Free-will ?

Where does Spurgeon say "Christ died for everyone" ?

where does Spurgeon even say "Christ died for YOU" ?

etc etc ........

yours is a bogus arguement , for the Gospel invitation is not at odds with Calvinism , go read some Calvin , Owen , and Packer.

cygnusx1 · Oct 5, 2008

Rep Daddy said:
Led astray and blocked from entering heaven are not the same.

"For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect."

Mark 13:22

The clear implication is it is not possible.

So your argument is Pharisees can do what False Christs and False Prophets can not do.

Taint right, Van. Your doctrine mocks the grace and power of God.

I fear "the clear implication" is lost on him , if Pharisees can prevent TRUE believers from being saved then Mark 13:22 is of little comfort and is robbed of it's impact , it becomes powerless meaningless grandiloquence , as do so many scriptures in the hands of anti-calvinist hot air. .

The TULIP is not only unbroken it is sweeter than ever. "Salvation is of The Lord" , Salvation is all by Grace , even faith is by Grace.

For an accurate understanding of just how near the light the reprobate may go , a chart penned many years ago will help .
Calvinist's have a sophisticated system of Soteriology that is mostly beyond the interest therefore the understanding , of most anti-calvinists , which result in blind prejudices.

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/perkins_chart.gif

The Tulip is broken

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Well-Known Member

Contributor

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Contributor

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Contributor

The original! Accept no substitutes!

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

God's justice does not demand second chances

Contributor

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Contributor

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Jacob the twister.....

Jacob the twister.....

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency