Why do Calvinists....

[Boxmaker]

Would 'less pride' be a righteousness? I think so. But what does the Word say?:

Given the rather odd definition of works Calvinists use, I can understand why you would think so.

lIf an humble man were to boast, wouldn't 'less pride' be a thing to boast about?

No boast, just speculation to your questions.

You keep holding onto that chain in which your "grabbing" or "less pride" are the weakest link, and I assure you that because they are yours, that chain will break.

It wont break because now that I have been saved I am on the boat. By your own admission, one cannot lose their salvation.

I can only be grateful that Jesus tied the chain of His Own completed work around my dead carcass,

Your carcass was not dead, your soul was. There is a difference.

breathed His life into me, lifted me out of the water by that chain alone, along with my brethren, (Eph 2:6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (7)That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

SDG,

Brad

What if you had a love potion. You could give it to somebody and they would fall in love with and become your spouse. Everyday they would express their undieing love for you. How would you feel about that love? Would it be satisfying to you to know that it was based on something you did and not on who you are?

 

[FreeInChrist2]

What if you had a love potion. You could give it to somebody and they would fall in love with and become your spouse. Everyday they would express their undieing love for you. How would you feel about that love?

Then the spouse didn't have a choice...did she?

Yet you had a choice to use it on any woman you wanted, yet you didn't choose to use it on every woman. I don't think the potion would care whether you were satisfied or not...the potion did all the work, but you want to take the credit. Perhaps the potion maker should get some credit so he can feel good about him self too?

Would it be satisfying to you to know that it was based on something you did and not on who you are?

Conditional Love...No Thanks!

Wouldn't it be better to be loved, being so unlovable?

Hey... give me some of that potion so I can take it, then maybe I could really love too!

 

[Boxmaker]

Then the spouse didn't have a choice...did she?

Yet you had a choice to use it on any woman you wanted, yet you didn't choose to use it on every woman. I don't think the potion would care whether you were satisfied or not...the potion did all the work, but you want to take the credit. Perhaps the potion maker should get some credit so he can feel good about him self too?

Conditional Love...No Thanks!

Wouldn't it be better to be loved, being so unlovable?

Hey... give me some of that potion so I can take it, then maybe I could really love too!

BUt that is what Calvinism says about God. God gives some people a potion and some not. But the love that those give back to the potion maker (God) is not real love. They love God because He made them love Him, not because of who He is.

 

[FreeInChrist2]

I am saying that God revealed to me how utterly hopeless life is without Him and what awaited me at the end of life if I continued to reject Him.

OK, OK...OK, So you didn't have a choice. There was no choice to make. How can you choose what God had already shown you? He showed you that you could not continue to reject Him. (Hold back on that one my brothers, I know, I know) What's to choose? Thus His grace was irresistible. Or is it? If so, then why don't you reject Him today?

He showed me how heavy my burden was and He offered me a better way.

You need to explain this. What was your burden? What is the better way only offered to you? I know it is revealed in the next sentence...

It is His love, His grace, His salvation that He offered me even though I don't deserve it.

Who is this god you keep talking about? What kind of god makes an offer of love. Isn't loving you even when you didn't deserve it...actually loving you. Or is it only loving you only if you accept it? Do you tell your children... well kids today I am only going to make you an offer of love, but tomorrow if you don't chose it, you can't have it? What kind of Dad is that? Kids I am going to offer underserved favor (grace) to you today, but only if you accept it? Well kids, when you are drowning in the ocean, I'm only going to make an offer to save you?????????? (sigh) Are these stupid questions or what? Of course they are!

What kind of god would even throw a life preserver? Don't you want a God that jumped in and just flat out saved you?

He also created me to respond to Him

Where in scripture does it teach you were created for the purpose of responding to God?

and I did,

(sssssiiiiigggghhhh) What did… what Christ did… have to do with you?

I surrendered my will to Him

Do you still sin? Of course...so can anyone say they have surrendered their wills to Him when it is their will to sin? Not very surrendering is it? So you gave up… pornos, or drinking & cursing, or breaking the speed limit, or worldly recreations on the Lords day, or not tithing, …is it your will that you would free yourself from sin, or is it Gods will that you flee from these things? Who gets the glory?

so that Jesus might live in me and through me.

but only after you surrendered your will...right? Well, since you still have sin in your life, (because no one truly surrenders their will) surely then Jesus isn't living in you and through you...obviously. What a sad deduction. Where’s the hope in that?

Wow that just blows me away, that one whom claims to be a child of God does not realize they can surrender all they want, they can’t out surrender what God surrendered, so how’s your surrendering going to impress God? If anything, we should see how much we have not surrendered in sins of omission and sins of commission, thus causing us to fall back to our knees… seeking Gods mercy… through confession of sin and repentance!

My will is no more (although it does assert it self from time to time with predictable bad results)

Case in point above.

and the Fathers will is not in me. I have become a new creation in God.

Better re-think this one. The Father is not in me, yet a new creation? (sigh)

God offered to me the gift of salvation and I accepted. My salvation is an undeserved gift from God.

My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD! My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD! My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD! My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD! My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD! My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD! My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD! My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD! My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD! My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD!

My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD! My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD!




My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD!
My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD!
My salvation is an undeserved gift from God…PERIOD!

It is not a belief based on a verse here and a verse there. It is based on reading the New Testament in its entierity.

If your statement is what you really believe, and you believe you derived it from scripture, then you should be able to show from specific scripture that teaches the true (false) doctrines of “mans ability to respond to Spiritual life in Christ.”


Originally Posted by FreeInChrist2

Then the spouse didn't have a choice...did she?

Yet you had a choice to use it on any woman you wanted, yet you didn't choose to use it on every woman. I don't think the potion would care whether you were satisfied or not...the potion did all the work, but you want to take the credit. Perhaps the potion maker should get some credit so he can feel good about him self too?

Conditional Love...No Thanks!

Wouldn't it be better to be loved, being so unlovable?

Hey... give me some of that potion so I can take it, then maybe I could really love too!

BUt that is what Calvinism says about God. God gives some people a potion and some not. But the love that those give back to the potion maker (God) is not real love. They love God because He made them love Him, not because of who He is.

The point here is not that we loved God but that He loved us. Again do you sin still? YES! Are you loving God when you sin? CERTIANLT NOT! So when you can finally accept this…then and only then will you understand Gods mercy and grace and that He would love the unloveable.

Would this be a BOXMAKER Prayer…Lord, I sure am glad I am not like those Calvinists, because I have loved you freely and I know you have to make them love you.

The Calvinist prayer is…Lord, have mercy, for we have not loved You as we should.

The Problem here is that you seem to continue excluding yourself!

So How does Scripture say how we may know if we love God? Do you know the verses?

 

[bradfordl]

What if you had a love potion. You could give it to somebody and they would fall in love with and become your spouse. Everyday they would express their undieing love for you. How would you feel about that love? Would it be satisfying to you to know that it was based on something you did and not on who you are?

Fallacy of faulty analogy. A woman is capable (theoretically, of course) of having love for me without potions, and in an unregenerate state, therefore the use of a potion would be counterfeit. But as the Word says,

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

and

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

So there are none righteous, and none that do good, and regardless of your protestations, "less pride" is commanded of you by the Word, and is therefore a righteousness and doing good, and you know it. And the carnal mind is at emnity with God and cannot be subject to His law, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God (such as have "less pride"), and the only folks who are not in the flesh are those who have the Spirit of Christ.

These scriptures clearly indicate a complete inability on the part of the unsaved to do anything to please God, so your having "less pride" that enables you to "grab" some life preserver, all of which would obviously be pleasing to God if your paradigm is true, would be an impossible thing for an unsaved person to do.

Box, you gotta stop interpreting scripture by your own muddled sense of fairness and need for love to be uninduced, and let scripture interpret scripture.

You don't desrve to be loved, yet it is possible for fallen humans to love you without inducement. God deserves to be loved above all others, yet it is impossible for humans to love Him without inducement.

Your argument defeats itself.

SDG

Brad

 

[Boxmaker]

The Problem here is that you seem to continue excluding yourself!

What makes you think that?

So How does Scripture say how we may know if we love God? Do you know the verses?

Depends. From a Calvinis view point you can't know if your elect or not until you die. From a Biblical point of view we show our love by being obedient to His will for our life by letting Jesus live in us and throuhg us. By seeking a true relationship with Jesus and being available for what he wants us to do.

 

[Boxmaker]

Fallacy of faulty analogy. A woman is capable (theoretically, of course) of having love for me without potions, and in an unregenerate state, therefore the use of a potion would be counterfeit. But as the Word says, and
So there are none righteous, and none that do good, and regardless of your protestations, "less pride" is commanded of you by the Word, and is therefore a righteousness and doing good, and you know it. And the carnal mind is at emnity with God and cannot be subject to His law, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God (such as have "less pride"), and the only folks who are not in the flesh are those who have the Spirit of Christ.

These scriptures clearly indicate a complete inability on the part of the unsaved to do anything to please God, so your having "less pride" that enables you to "grab" some life preserver, all of which would obviously be pleasing to God if your paradigm is true, would be an impossible thing for an unsaved person to do.

Box, you gotta stop interpreting scripture by your own muddled sense of fairness and need for love to be uninduced, and let scripture interpret scripture.

You don't desrve to be loved, yet it is possible for fallen humans to love you without inducement. God deserves to be loved above all others, yet it is impossible for humans to love Him without inducement.

Your argument defeats itself.

SDG

Brad

Sorry, but God di not create us to be robots running a pre-programmed life. Christ seeks a relationship with us. God does not have to plan every moment of our lives to be sovereign. God is sovereign and can and does make His will happen as needed. I have looked at the Westminister statement and it just doesn't wash. If God planed the Judas would betray Christ, how could it be a sin? It was done for God's glory so how could it be a sin?

 

[10Ethanim]

From a Calvinis view point you can't know if your elect or not until you die.

I think you might be confusing Calvinism and Islam?

 

[bradfordl]

I have looked at the Westminister statement and it just doesn't wash.

You should qualify that with it doesn't wash with you. Your ability to properly exegete scripture is obviuosly wanting, so your ability to understand sound doctrine is no surprise:

If God planed the Judas would betray Christ, how could it be a sin? It was done for God's glory so how could it be a sin?

You expose yourself with this statement. Your difficulty is in trying to rectify God's sovereignty with man's responsibility, and so you foist upon God the temporal limitations that you operate under to resolve it. From there you extrapolate all sorts of unbiblical suppositions about doctrine and God's character. But you are wrong, and you know that scripture plainly proves it.

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

God determined it, and wicked hands carried it out. And just as Joseph's brothers intended the wickedness they committed against him for evil, but God intended it for good, God's determining to use the wickedness of men for His own good purposes does not absolve men of their responsibility. You fall into the same mind as that which Paul anticipates in Romans 9 in reaction to the doctrine of election,"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?". Paul rebukes that mindset unequivocably. Again, your argument defeats itself in light of scripture, since it claims scripture as it's evidence.

Do you know the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

Your arguments are becoming progressively less coherent.

SDG,

Brad

 

[10Ethanim]

Your difficulty is in trying to rectify God's sovereignty with man's responsibility...

That's always been a very tough one for most of us Christians, and why there are so many varying avenues in trying to figure it out or express it properly.

 

[Boxmaker]

You should qualify that with it doesn't wash with you. Your ability to properly exegete scripture is obviuosly wanting, so your ability to understand sound doctrine is no surprise:
You expose yourself with this statement. Your difficulty is in trying to rectify God's sovereignty with man's responsibility, and so you foist upon God the temporal limitations that you operate under to resolve it. From there you extrapolate all sorts of unbiblical suppositions about doctrine and God's character. But you are wrong, and you know that scripture plainly proves it.
God determined it, and wicked hands carried it out. And just as Joseph's brothers intended the wickedness they committed against him for evil, but God intended it for good, God's determining to use the wickedness of men for His own good purposes does not absolve men of their responsibility. You fall into the same mind as that which Paul anticipates in Romans 9 in reaction to the doctrine of election,"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?". Paul rebukes that mindset unequivocably. Again, your argument defeats itself in light of scripture, since it claims scripture as it's evidence.

Do you know the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

Yes, I know the difference. Yes, I know what your are accusing me of. No, I do not agree with your statement.

Your arguments are becoming progressively less coherent.

SDG,

Brad

No, my arguments have not changed. I have examined the same argument from several different perspectives.

I have read the Westminster statmenet of faith and it does not square with Scripture as it has been revealed to me. (Is that better?)

 

[Boxmaker]

That's always been a very tough one for most of us Christians, and why there are so many varying avenues in trying to figure it out or express it properly.

Say you build a robot and program it to go across the street and kill your neighbor. Your neighbor has been slandering you and killing them will stop that and allow you to reclaim your reputation as a good nad honest person. Who bears responsability for the murder, the robot or the person who programmed the robot?

Can you be responsible for that which you have no control over?

 

[10Ethanim]

Say you build a robot and program it to go across the street and kill your neighbor. Your neighbor has been slandering you and killing them will stop that and allow you to reclaim your reputation as a good nad honest person. Who bears responsability for the murder, the robot or the person who programmed the robot?

Can you be responsible for that which you have no control over?

Your scenarios don't seem to match up to me. If someone comits an act of evil, they are responsible for that act, whether they have any control not to commit evil or not. Holiness is holy or it is not, and anything not holy is not holiness. God is holy.

 

[Boxmaker]

Your scenarios don't seem to match up to me. If someone comits an act of evil, they are responsible for that act, whether they have any control not to commit evil or not. Holiness is holy or it is not, and anything not holy is not holiness. God is holy.

That is a whole bunch of words that say nothing.

 

[10Ethanim]

I'm sorry. That's what I thought concerning the scenarios you gave. I must have missed your point. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[bradfordl]

No, my arguments have not changed. I have examined the same argument from several different perspectives.

Yah? <shrug> Oh well.... the only perspective that counts is that of scripture. You stated "If God planed the Judas would betray Christ, how could it be a sin?", then I cited Acts 2 where scripture plainly states that Judas' betrayal and Christ's crucifixion were the determinate will of God, and also that the hands that performed the deed (which would include Judas') were wicked. Wickedness is sin for which men are held responsible. The determinate will of God includes that men sin. That in no way relieves them of their responsibility for that sin.

As I said earlier, if you found your argument on scripture, it is defeated by scripture. If you found your argument on something else... say... your own sensibilty as to what is fair of God to do, then why do you debate here, since you are a canon unto yourself? Why not start your own religion, Boxianity or something, start your own forum, and discuss the various interpretations and manifestations of your own whims there? What you hold to is evidently not biblical Christianity, since you reject the plain words of the Bible.

SDG

Brad

 

[Boxmaker]

Yah? <shrug> Oh well.... the only perspective that counts is that of scripture. You stated "If God planed the Judas would betray Christ, how could it be a sin?", then I cited Acts 2 where scripture plainly states that Judas' betrayal and Christ's crucifixion were the determinate will of God, and also that the hands that performed the deed (which would include Judas') were wicked. Wickedness is sin for which men are held responsible.

I never said that Judas wasn't carrying out God's will. I am asking if Judas was doing Gods will, as determined by God, how can doing Gods will be consdiered wicked? If he had no choice in the matter how come its wicked and evil? Evil is oposition to Gods will but Judas was doing Gods will yet it was still evil. So Gods will must be both good and evil. See the quandry?

The determinate will of God includes that men sin. That in no way relieves them of their responsibility for that sin.

God determines that I sin and then punishes me for doing His will.

As I said earlier, if you found your argument on scripture, it is defeated by scripture. If you found your argument on something else... say... your own sensibilty as to what is fair of God to do, then why do you debate here, since you are a canon unto yourself? Why not start your own religion, Boxianity or something, start your own forum, and discuss the various interpretations and manifestations of your own whims there? What you hold to is evidently not biblical Christianity, since you reject the plains words of the Bible.

SDG

Brad

So anybody who does not hold to the Calvinistic interpretation of scripture is not saved?

 

[cygnusx1]

are you happy boxmaker ?

 

[Boxmaker]

are you happy boxmaker ?

Happy about what, exactly?

 

[bradfordl]

I never said that Judas wasn't carrying out God's will. I am asking if Judas was doing Gods will, as determined by God, how can doing Gods will be consdiered wicked? If he had no choice in the matter how come its wicked and evil? Evil is oposition to Gods will but Judas was doing Gods will yet it was still evil. So Gods will must be both good and evil. See the quandry?

Oh, absolutely! So how do you resolve the quandry?

God determines that I sin and then punishes me for doing His will.

Yes. How do you resolve that?

So anybody who does not hold to the Calvinistic interpretation of scripture is not saved?

Never implied that. What I did imply is that your rejection of the plain teaching of scripture, i.e. that Judas was doing God's will and yet was still responsible for the sin he committed, is not Biblical Christianity.

But further, it appears that you resolve the "quandry" of God's determining all things while still holding men responsible for their actions by assigning to God the same limitations that envelope men. That is rank anthropomorphism. That was not Paul's answer to the same objection in Romans 9, but you don't like it, and therefore reject his reply, "who art thou O man to reply against your maker....". So you reject scripture.

SDG

Brad