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.
Thank you. Agreed completely. But they will balk at this and deny they use the same thing themselves. Some even have gone so far as to say that we preach a self-contradicting, or mentally inconsistent/ incoherent god, capricious, mean and lying if not crazy. So, whenever possible, I show them other arguments that should do the job.God's two wills. Acts 2:23 “Jesus, was delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, whom you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”
On the cross, the Revealed Will and the Secret Will of God collided. According to God's revealed will He allowed his secret will to be violated in order that the greater purpose of his glory, in the saving of his people, might be accomplished. So we learn this principle, sometimes God does that which he hates (in the case of Jesus’ murder) in order to accomplish his greater good plan. On one hand, morally, God never wills that any should perish (1 Tim 2:4) yet, in the greater scheme of things, his goodness and justice is seen more brightly and rightly if some do in fact perish. So He sovereignty wills their perishing. In having holy justice occur upon the perishing the true heinousness of sin is shown.
In saving some from perishing, the true and deep nature of his mercy and love is shown. Thus once again, as with Jesus on the cross, we have God doing that which on one hand he hates, in order to on the other hand accomplish the greater good of his glory.
We know that it was not the 'will of God' that Judas and Pilate and Herod and the Gentile soldiers and the Jewish crowds disobey the revealed law of God by sinning in delivering Jesus up to be crucified. But we also know that it was the will of God that this come to pass. Therefore we know that God in some sense wills what he does not will in another sense.
Gen 50:20 Here God's revealed will to Joseph's brothers was that they should love him and not steal from him or sell him into slavery or make plans to murder him, nor lie to their father about what happened to him. But God's secret will was that in the disobedience of Joseph's brothers a greater good would be done when Joseph, having been sold into slavery into Egypt, gained authority over the land and was able to save his entire family.
Non-Calvinists claim that the reason why all are not saved is that God wills to preserve the free will of man more than he wills to save everyone. But is this not also making a distinction in two aspects of the will of God? On the one hand God wills that all be saved (1 Tim. 2:5-6; 2 Peter 3:9), but on the other hand he wills to preserve man's absolutely free choice. In fact, he wills the second thing more than the
first. But this means that non-Calvinists also must say that 1 Timothy 2:5-6 and 2 Peter 3:9 do not say that God wills the salvation of everyone in an absolute or unqualified way, they too must say that the verses only refer to one kind or one aspect of God's will.
I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. I ask why all the time, and to me, the particular nature of the Bride answers that question (Why Jimmy and not Clark); it is God's choice, and it is not random. Unlike the question why does A choose well and B does not, answered by "freewill", which admits to randomness and chance.You are happy with the idea that God does what He does, for His purposes and pleassure and you don't feel the need to ask "why" He does what He does. But you don't like the idea of us having a free will without asking "why" we do what we do.
Maybe none of those questions need to be answered.
To Whom It May Concern:
Anybody can make the Bible say almost anything by quoting selective verses out-of-context.
Twenty two categories of unrighteous people who have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.1. adulterers, 2. covetous, 3. drunkenness, 4. effeminate, 5. emulations, 6. envious, 7. extortion 8. fornication, 9. hatred, 10. heresies, 11. homosexuals, 12. idolators, 13. lasciviousness, 14. murder, 15. reveling, 16. revilers 17. sedition, 18. strife, 19. thieves, 20. uncleanness 21. witchcraft. 22. Wrath
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 3:17
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [no wrongdoer] neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that [no wrongdoer] no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Psalms 95:10-11
(10) Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
(11) Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.
Hebrews 3:11-14
(11) So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)[Ps 95:11]
(12) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
(13) But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
(14) For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
Matthew 7:21-23
(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Twenty two categories of unrighteous people who have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.1. adulterers, 2. covetous, 3. drunkenness, 4. effeminate, 5. emulations, 6. envious, 7. extortion 8. fornication, 9. hatred, 10. heresies, 11. homosexuals, 12. idolators, 13. lasciviousness, 14. murder, 15. reveling, 16. revilers 17. sedition, 18. strife, 19. thieves, 20. uncleanness 21. witchcraft. 22. Wrath
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 3:17
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [no wrongdoer] neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. I ask why all the time, and to me, the particular nature of the Bride answers that question (Why Jimmy and not Clark); it is God's choice, and it is not random. Unlike the question why does A choose well and B does not, answered by "freewill", which admits to randomness and chance.
Why? Give me a hint? Let me guess, a lot of posts which, supposedly, show that all mankind will be saved, the righteous and unrighteous alike, no matter what, even after death. Sorry. Bintheredunthat.I recommend that you do a thorough study of every page on this thread.
Why? Give me a hint? Let me guess, a lot of posts which, supposedly, show that all mankind will be saved, the righteous and unrighteous alike, no matter what, even after death. Sorry. Bintheredunthat.
Get real Mark. I dunno why but I`ll quote you.
"HOW does Ephesians 2 teach otherwise than TULIP, or in opposition to TULIP? "
Now that's a direct quote so own it. No need to falsely accuse me of being disrespectful or arrogant here. That charge is nothing but a form of Ad Hominum. And the only people who think TULIP is not
man's invention are the Calvinists. Sorry, but God did not write the epistle of TULIP. It`s a doctrine of
men.
Your verse 5 is a direct reference to salvation, You have to get seeded by the gospel in order for that to happen.No matter how much confused rhetoric you write to try and say otherwise it`s a principle that cannot be violated.
The "installation" (your word) by God of his Spirit into us is the action by God that saves us. By the Spirit of Christ, we are received into the Body of Christ. This cannot happen until after we are seeded by the gospel and repent.
Your doctrine of irresistible grace is a myth. It believes that God subverts man's will in order to force him to get saved. No matter what rationalization you come up with that is the truth.
Jesus said many are called, few are chosen. Going by the Calvin doctrine for regeneration it usually doesn't work. Calvin regeneration is a flop. Thank God it isn't true and the elect get saved.
Mea culpa.Maybe you posted to the wrong thread. Cormack is the only universalist to post on this thread as far as I know.
"Are you asking why the Bride is composed of people of Jimmy's particular personality and character vs that of Clark?"
Yes!
"Why not ask why God made the Bride as he did, according to his particular preferences."
Yes, why not? I believe God only has one preference for the Bride, that you believe.
But it's not only that. If God created Clark with another personalty it would still be "Clark". It's the same soul, the same "I" with another personality. But maybe you don't think that way? I had an aquaintance who had a deep psychosis. After this event her personality changed, she became a "different person", but it was still "her". Like she said: "I'm different, but it is still me.
Mark Quayle said: ↑
YOU are the one who brought up TULIP. I hadn't mentioned it in my post quoting Ephesians 2.
So now, in that first post of mine quoting Ephesians 2 (post #1787), do you see me mentioning TULIP as such? No! I did not mention it nor reference it nor did I mean it by anything that I said. I was not thinking of it. (I did in subsequent post, at your request, mention the one point of Total Depravity, as it was representative of Calvinism and you claimed Eph 2 did not teach Calvinism. So I showed it did, not because Total Depravity is part of TULIP, but because it is part of Calvinism, and demonstrated repeatedly in Scripture, including in Eph 2).
The mention of TULIP did not occur till you mentioned it in post #1921. Do you need me to quote you? Or will you back off on your attempted shout-down without it?
Where does this "seeding by the gospel" (which btw is not mentioned in Eph 2:1-10) contradict the fact of regeneration and salvation and several other things necessarily being part of/ the result of the indwelling of the Spirit of God? And again, explain how the seeding by the gospel, of itself, (bearing in mind that you are referring to it happening to the still fleshly nature), saves anyone, or even makes sense to the fallen sinful fleshly mind?
In other words, if your contention is true (and I do agree that it is, depending on what you mean by 'seeding') that the "seeding by the gospel" MUST happen in terms of logical sequence 'prior' to salvation, how is it possible that it can bring about salvation apart from God's 'awakening', 'making alive', 'regenerating' the spiritually dead, since faith is necessary? What do you think regenerating is? And where do you think salvific faith comes from?
If you cannot undo what I said in the response above, you have a long way to go still, before waxing eloquent about the uselessness of Calvinism. In fact, as far as I can tell, you've gotten nowhere so far. Saving Grace is something that happens to us, not something we induce to happen.
Ok, but the descriptions, or definitions, I hear concerning "free will" invoke (to whatever degree) a lack of causation, or a true spontaneity, which is simply logically self-contradictory to claim it exists to ANY degree, if not to a full degree; and it is also logically self-contradictory to attribute it to a mere creature. It can only refer to First Cause.I'm not sure either.
Just because we don't intellectually understand how free will works doesn't mean it's chance or randomness. I don't think that is fair either.
But I'm not even sure we mean the same thing when we say free will.
Haha, I would like to see how you would have responded, had I backed down after so such declarations as you have made, proven wrong, without admitting I was wrong.I don't see a whole lot here that relates to the scriptures so not much entertainment value in trying to figure out what all this is supposed to mean. I`ll pass on responding because this is just a whole lot of bulk with very little substance.
Getting back to topic,I only have two major problems with Calvinism, maybe limited atonement as a third but I see that as a by-product of the two primary errors. I've been through my issues on this thread multiple times so I`m tired of the repetition and the lack of scripture in some of your posts i.e. this one.
Haha, I would like to see how you would have responded, had I backed down after so such declarations as you have made, proven wrong, without admitting I was wrong.
But you have a point. We have talked enough.
Not everyone who does wrong things they want to do is eligible for prosecution. There is the age of accountability and people with very low IQs never reach it. Depravity is not considered.Our court is set up to convict someone for choosing to do something wrong that he wanted to do.
I believe the Holy Spirit convicts people during the presentation of the Gospel but it is still up to them to respond. We see evidence of that in Peter's Acts 2 preaching style where he effectively promises salvation to those who repent & get baptized, and he implores the audience to "Save yourselves". If man's will is not involved, then why would Peter (being led by the Holy Spirit) strive so hard to get those in the audience to repent and be baptized?Unless I misunderstand your request, EVERY example has that. But, for an example, look to his calling of the disciples. John 3:8 perhaps provides the doctrinal principle, but it is not an example of it happening. Maybe you didn't mean it that way.
Probably the plainest thing you can see would be the fact that in every case, the whole of the matter is initiated by God.
Obviously. That's really not the point though, is it?Not everyone who does wrong things they want to do is eligible for prosecution. There is the age of accountability and people with very low IQs never reach it. Depravity is not considered.
Haha! I have a nephew who has a rather compelling autism, who speaking from frustration once said, "My brain has a mind of its own!"
Not to make a joke of it, but if that is what God's use for your acquaintance is, and her new personality is part of her new persona, yet she is still the old "her", God's purposes for her still stand. Nothing has changed as far as what God had in mind from the beginning. I do think, though, that your example is a good demonstration of sovereignty. This did not happen to her by God's accident. God INTENDED it, and "intended it for good." This life is not for this life.
I can't begin to comprehend the depth of why God designed as he did each part of his construction, but each part will be precisely as planned, and will fit perfectly, without any flaw, and will be God's own perfectly satisfying dwelling place. "Jimmy" fits there, and was made as he was for what he will become. "Clark" on the other hand, was made for other uses, and, logically, was designed to fill that particular spot in creation, time and his fitting end. God doesn't operate randomly.
Ok, but the descriptions, or definitions, I hear concerning "free will" invoke (to whatever degree) a lack of causation, or a true spontaneity, which is simply logically self-contradictory to claim it exists to ANY degree, if not to a full degree; and it is also logically self-contradictory to attribute it to a mere creature. It can only refer to First Cause.
But yes, we don't mean the same thing by it, which brings up one of the things I respect about you, is the fact that you are a bit 'stand back' about such definitions. You seem to me to find value in not deciding early, or in simply gathering information or accumulating thoughts. I have seen even antagonistic vehement freewillers disagree between themselves as to what it means, even though there does seem to me to be a common chord of the need for decision to be in some way entirely man's or it isn't real.
Your question is an old one, and it is a common misunderstanding that Reformed Theology teaches that everything happens automatically, with no effort on the part of the elect. In particular this is taken to apply to the Gospel. I can't say that my answer will be typical of Reformed Theology, as there are a couple of things that I think about it that I don't often hear from anyone else. But the question is asked backwards, or in a mistaken way, attributing validity to our POV and being asked from that POV, assuming that our will is the operating principle, if it is at all involved. There is also the fact that if the sentient "free agent" (the human) is not willfully involved, it is still no implication that anything happens "automatically". I perhaps have said the human will is not involved in regeneration, because it is difficult to show someone who believes in the choice of man being the operative principle in salvation, how it is only by Grace. God does regenerate a person by use of all sorts of things, such as the preaching of the Gospel, and life's events, and human emotions and on and on. But these do not constitute regeneration.I believe the Holy Spirit convicts people during the presentation of the Gospel but it is still up to them to respond. We see evidence of that in Peter's Acts 2 preaching style where he effectively promises salvation to those who repent & get baptized, and he implores the audience to "Save yourselves". If man's will is not involved, then why would Peter (being led by the Holy Spirit) strive so hard to get those in the audience to repent and be baptized?
I am looking for an example in scripture where the Holy Spirit (or God) changes a persons nature and that alone accounts for their positive response to God. If John 3:3-8 or any other passage conclusively says it happens that way that suffices.
Not to split hairs but your third group above would technically fall under the unbelievers group . So there are two groups . Even the ones who haven’t heard but will also fall under the two groups for they will either become a believer or remain unbelievers.It was easier to stay interested when I thought you were a Bible college graduate.
There are only three kinds of people in this world, those who believe, those who don't, and those who haven't had a chance to make a decision.
All will be made alive again just as both Paul and Jesus proclaimed.
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?