You be the judge!

[Bulldog]

Here's another good quote on Rev. 3:20 :

It is true that in Revelation 3:20 Jesus is presented as knocking at the door. But this is not the door of anyone's heart. He knocks at the door of that corrupt church of Laodicea and He calls unto separation those who yet love the Word of God. But Christ does not knock at any man's heart. The Lord opened Lydia's heart - then she listened and believed. That is the irresistible power of the grace of our God. He breaks open the closed heart; and the child of God believes.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...4.html+Calvinism+and+Rev.+3:20&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[Ben johnson]

Let's jump from Revelation 3:14-22, and discuss Revelation 2:4-5.

Anyone game???

 

[Laserman]

Bulldog,

So you define "Whomsoever" not to mean Whomsoever but the Elect right? To my suggestion to read the Bible instead of Calvinist theology books You said " What's the difference"? Wow, at least you are are consistent Calvinist! Calvinist always raise their Confessions and education to the level of Scripture.They say they don't but in practice they do with the Westminster Confession and the Heidelberg . Do I really have to spell out the difference between the Word of God and a Calvinist theology Book? I'm sure you were "foolishly Jesting" right? That's not a wise jest in my opinion Bulldog.

Barry

Barry

 

[Bulldog]

So you define "Whomsoever" not to mean Whomsoever but the Elect right?

The verse is pretty straightforward. Whomsoever belives shall have eternal life. However, it's only the elect that will believe:

John 6:37-40

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

[Laserman]

Bulldog,

Your other quote on Rev 3:20 is not acceptable to me. What you quote says is the EXACT opposite of what the Word Of God says. True, He was addressing the Laodician's but does that mean none applies to us? No, while addressing the Laodcian's He uses verses19-22 to address all men, anytime, anywhere. He does not say If any Laodician opens the door. He says if ANY MAN opens the door. You are reading the verse with Calvinism firmly planted in your mind and making it fit your theology. Look at your response to what it literally says. You say, never mind what it says, this is what it means. Meanwhile it says what it says. If you choose to ignore it in favor of Calvinism , that's our Decision. You have the free will do do that.

Barry

 

[Bulldog]

Bulldog,

Your other quote on Rev 3:20 is not acceptable to me. What you quote says is the EXACT opposite of what the Word Of God says. True, He was addressing the Laodician's but does that mean none applies to us? No, while addressing the Laodcian's He uses verses19-22 to address all men, anytime, anywhere. He does not say If any Laodician opens the door. He says if ANY MAN opens the door. You are reading the verse with Calvinism firmly planted in your mind and making it fit your theology. Look at your response to what it literally says. You say, never mind what it says, this is what it means. Meanwhile it says what it says. If you choose to ignore it in favor of Calvinism , that's our Decision. You have the free will do do that.

Barry

But He is referring to the Laodician's. The verse does not give indication that it is to everybody.

 

[Laserman]

BullDog,

The verses also give no indication that it's only for the Laodcian's. What does "Any man" mean to you? Does it mean any man or does it mean Laodician?

Barry

 

[Laserman]

Bulldog,

Better yet does "Any Man" mean the Elect of the Laodcian's?

Barry

 

[orthotomeo]

I believe that whosoever believes will have eternal life.

Only if they're elect!

Reprobates can sincerely believe the Gospel, too, Bulldog. So since no Calvinist knows if he's elect or reprobate, no Calvinist can know if God has made him one of the few for whom Christ shed His blood.

That means your faith MAY be fake (sincere, true, but sincerely fake). That means you MAY fall away from the reformed faith when you're 64.

Calvinism gives you no way to KNOW, this side of death, you're safe in Christ. Sad.

o.

 

[Bulldog]

BullDog,

The verses also give no indication that it's only for the Laodcian's. What does "Any man" mean to you? Does it mean any man or does it mean Laodician?

Barry

Barry (If I may call you that),

The verse is from a specefic letter to the Laodcian's. It does not need do be specefed because it is speaking directly to the church. Revelation 3:14:

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

(emphasis addedd)

Btw: how do you know this verse ids referring to salvation?

 

[Bulldog]

Calvinism gives you no way to KNOW,

Where do you get this form?

 

[frumanchu]

Reprobates can sincerely believe the Gospel, too, Bulldog. So since no Calvinist knows if he's elect or reprobate, no Calvinist can know if God has made him one of the few for whom Christ shed His blood.

You're right. That whole "Spirit witnesses together with our spirit that we are the sons of God" thing isn't really true.

As far as reprobates "believing" the Gospel, it's not the notitia (knowledge), or even the assensus (agreement), that saves. Satan and his demons could easily blow us away on a theology exam. But it is the feducia (the change in perceived value, the embracing of and reliance upon the truth) that saves. And the Word is replete with examples of how one may have assurance. Perseverance is in fact one of the characteristics of true saving faith.

Calvinism gives you no way to KNOW, this side of death, you're safe in Christ. Sad.

Hardly. On the contrary, the Reformed position not only give you blessed assurance that your faith will save you, but that God has sealed you by His Spirit, given you the earnest of the Spirit as a guarantee of your salvation, and promised that He will preserve you.

 

[Romanbear]

Hi orthotomeo;

Question: Can the salvation offered by the man with the key be considered a sincere offer? Please explain any answers.

If this scenario was real and you didn't trust him you'd be insane IMHO.
Quite the contrary with the shoe on the other foot.
What if he said well there you are about to die a horrible death. I could save you if I wanted to, but I may like to just sit here and watch you burn for the shear pleasure of it. It's up to me weather or not you live. I made you and I can destroy you if it's my wish. You have no choice. It doesn't matter that you believe in me,It doesn't matter that my servants said that if you believe in me you'll be saved. Even if act 16:31 is my word. There was no way Paul and Silas could know if the man had been regenerated yet. They asked how they could be saved seeking God. And Paul and Silas answered. Question could you love a God who would take pleasure in watching you die if He choose to? Or would gratitude for being saved take away the truth of this nature.
Real Love is not forced. I don't believe God would want us to be with him in eternity unless we loved Him on our own.
May God Bless You;
Romanbear

 

[Bulldog]

Hi orthotomeo;


If this scenario was real and you didn't trust him you'd be insane IMHO.
Quite the contrary with the shoe on the other foot.
What if he said well there you are about to die a horrible death. I could save you if I wanted to, but I may like to just sit here and watch you burn for the shear pleasure of it. It's up to me weather or not you live. I made you and I can destroy you if it's my wish. You have no choice. It doesn't matter that you believe in me,It doesn't matter that my servants said that if you believe in me you'll be saved. Even if act 16:31 is my word. There was no way Paul and Silas could know if the man had been regenerated yet. They asked how they could be saved seeking God. And Paul and Silas answered. Question could you love a God who would take pleasure in watching you die if He choose to? Or would gratitude for being saved take away the truth of this nature.
Real Love is not forced. I don't believe God would want us to be with him in eternity unless we loved Him on our own.
May God Bless You;
Romanbear

I don't see anyone saying that God takes pleasure in watching people die.

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Bulldog;

Isn't that what God is doing if He doesn't offer everyone the same opportunities?
If the offer of Salvation is a mandate then it isn't a gift. The man offers the guy in the cage away out and Othortomeo doesn't think it's a good offer.

You were there. You saw and heard everything that went on. It seems obvious, from his actions, that the man with the key never really intended to save the person in the cage.

If what Othortmeo said is true wouldn't you think that he feels the offer is just a means of torture rather than being sincere
May God Bless You;
Romanbear

 

[frumanchu]

Isn't that what God is doing if He doesn't offer everyone the same opportunities?
If the offer of Salvation is a mandate then it isn't a gift. The man offers the guy in the cage away out and Othortomeo doesn't think it's a good offer.
If what Othortmeo said is true wouldn't you think that he feels the offer is just a means of torture rather than being sincere

Ray, is God required at all to offer salvation to anyone, let alone save anyone? What are we saved from but God's just and righteous wrath? And if we are justly condemnable, is there anything at all that obligates God to bring about the salvation of anyone?

I submit that the original analogy is grossly flawed. The stated purpose of the analogy was to "parallel what [orthotomeo] sees Calvinism presenting as the actions of God," but the analogy does not represent the Reformed position at all. In post [post=189024]#43[/post] I submitted a number of modifications and facts that would have to be included for this analogy to even closely represent the Reformed position. The response has been that the person in the cage is 'irrelevant' when in fact the person is ABSOLUTELY relevant.

So, what do you think, Ray? Are the characteristics and circumstances surrounding the man in the cage relevant or not? Do you have any comment on what I put forth in [post=189024]#43[/post]?

BTW, no Calvinist I know of has ever said that God takes pleasure in the death of the wicked, even though they deserve it.

 

[Received]

Ray, is God required at all to offer salvation to anyone, let alone save anyone? What are we saved from but God's just and righteous wrath? And if we are justly condemnable, is there anything at all that obligates God to bring about the salvation of anyone?

If the matter were universally agreed on as just condemnation by God, there would be no doubt that a lack of opposition to this stance would be seen; however, non-Calvinists do not declare that men deserve the state they are in. In short, the sin is not the man, though it obscures the intentions and understanding of man, for it is very much deceptive (Romans 7:11). A condemnation to eternal perishing is not something the non-Calvinist will hold as just, but rather for those who will have absolutely nothing of God -- just as salvation is of assiduous commitment -- that is, faith --, so too is unbelief, and we need not look past the bible for support of such persons. The momentary sins in themselves are already taken under the care of the justice of God on a daily basis (Psalm 62:12); to declare that Hell is a place for those who merely sin is a grave misunderstanding -- it must be for those who will not come out of their sin.

A moment's recollection will help drive the point home. As far as this morning, in a rather conservative -- comfortably conservative, I would say -- Southern Baptist church, a clinical psychologist trained in the scriptures revealed to us that because of stress without a deeper cure, men choose transient pleasures to null the shock of everyday life, to such an extent that they become addicted to these drives, and that they cause more damage perhaps than the stress itself, which undoubtedly would lead to a greater desire for mental satisfaction. In short, the pleasures of the flesh are substitutes for the suffering of the mind caused by society, and the deadness of the soul as being estranged from the presence of God. Psychologically and philosophically it follows that men are caught in a torrent of various superficial pleasures, of which are not desired necessarily in themselves, but as a means to cure their emptiness, anxiety, and anguish. A rare minority would transcend this fleshly desire and find an appetite for the mind -- literature, philosophy, etc. -- though the same depth of despair is still present to the unregenerate's makeup. The entire task is a massive futility; as Augustine once said in his Confessions, the soul should not follow the flesh for happiness -- and we know that until a possibility of salvation for the soul is offered, men suffer the inevitability of following their flesh for very weak and limited psychological 'kicks', of which have even worse repurcussions in the area of mental, physical, and psychological health. And we know from scripture that until the word is preached, salvation through Christ is impossible (Romans 10).

While the escape for the Calvinist may be the narrow road of Adam's headship as it applies to our moral choices made in his loins, there is no reason to follow this lead -- it implies the possiblity of man's soul existing eternally prior to his own existence, and perhaps the most shocking and concealed point in that God as a perfect and prodigious being is consciously and flagrantly rejected by the entirety of His creation -- billions upon billions. Non-Calvinists do not accept this view, but rather hold the power of sin in its nature contrary to God, established by man's freedom through Satan's temptation for some teleological purpose by God as of yet fully conceived by the feeble and sinful intellect of mankind.

Man is born inflicted, in bondage, a prisoner; it is not a question of us becoming evil, but of evil becoming us through our allowances via moral choices in giving progressive ground for the power of Sin to flourish in our bodies (cf. Romans 7); those who are condemned are those fully conscious of their wrong, and yet who still reject the good thereby blaspheming the Spirit (Luke 12:10) -- as to who this may end up being we cannot say, save those audacious exemplars in the image of the Pharisees.

 

[Ben johnson]

"And let he that thirsts come; let O-THELOS-WHOSOEVER-WILL take of the water of life freely." Rev22:17

How can that become, "Let only those whom God has PRE-CHOSEN (and all of them without exception) take of the water of life freely"???

Reprobates can sincerely believe the Gospel, too, Bulldog. So since no Calvinist knows if he's elect or reprobate, no Calvinist can know if God has made him one of the few for whom Christ shed His blood.

As far as reprobates "believing" the Gospel, it's not the notitia (knowledge), or even the assensus (agreement), that saves. Satan and his demons could easily blow us away on a theology exam. But it is the feducia (the change in perceived value, the embracing of and reliance upon the truth) that saves. And the Word is replete with examples of how one may have assurance. Perseverance is in fact one of the characteristics of true saving faith.

Fru, you seem to be saying that there is a difference in the TYPE of belief that saves. There are many examples of Christians who have lived their whole lives (or many years anyway) believing, worshipping God, with all the fruits and trappings of salvation; but then disbelieve. Can you say (or can you find anything in Scripture that says) that their BELIEF was UNTRUE? This is Orthotomeo's question; what is the DIFFERENCE between the BEGINNING belief of those in Luke8:13, and those in Luke8:15?

The Calvinist says: "Those in verse 15 are SAVED, by EVIDENCE of their PERSEVERANCE. And conversely the THIRTEENERS are UNSAVED by EVIDENCE of their 'falling-away'."

Saying that "their FALLING proves they WERE not saved", is to prove the ARGUMENT with the ASSUMPTION. How can one who BELIEVES, know that belief is REAL (that his salvation will CONTINUE)?

What is it about those of 2Pet2:20, who "escaped the defilements of the world through the EPIGNOSIS-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", what is it that makes you see their BELIEF, as DIFFERENT than the identically-described-ESCAPED-by-EPIGNOSIS of 2Pet1:2-4? (I mean, what is it that makes you see the ch2 escapees differently, OTHER THAN the prior belief of Calvinism?)

No disrespect intended; I am trying to understand how the view is not simply "proving the argument with the assumption"?

Why is belief that is "BEGUN-IN-THE-SPIRIT" (Gal3:3), "RUNNING-WELL" and "OBEYING THE TRUTH" (Gal5:7), why was that belief FALSE/NEVER-SAVED?

Oh we know that there are those who THINK they're saved, like in Matt7:21-23; but Jesus says, "they were PRACTICING WICKEDNESS". The Galatians were RUNNING WELL, OBEYING THE TRUTH. Those in 2Pet were ESCAPED DEFILEMENTS...

How can we (meaning all of us who PRACTICE righteousness), know for sure we are ELECT, until we DIE and PROVE by PERSEVERANCE that we WERE ELECT???

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Fru;

Ray, is God required at all to offer salvation to anyone, let alone save anyone?

God isn't required to do anything, but be God simply because, it's His nature to be. He may not have to save anyone, but He does. He may not have to offer Salvation to anyone, but He does. Thank God! He died for the sins of the whole world.
Eternal life with Christ is the only treassure worth having and all who have the gospel preached to them. Are having a treasure offered to them. This treasure is desirable to everyone,but some are affraid that it's to good to be true. That there is a catch 22 somewhere that will make them regret seeking this treasure. The catch 22's, ranges from what will I have to give up to what will people think of me.

To make this scenario even close to what the Reformed position actually is, you would have to add the fact that there were two people and that they broke into God's warehouse seeking to steal a crate of His glory and were caught in two cages. God holds in one hand the key to the cages (the keys of grace and mercy) and in the other the torch (the righteous wrath of God). The men in the cages demand the keys, insisting that they do not deserve such punishment and shaking their fists at God. God tells them that they can have the keys to the cage if they will admit that they were wrong for trying to steal from God, repent of it, and trust in Him to save them from the torch and the gasoline.

True representation but I would add that first the captive must trust that God will let Him have the Keys of Grace and mercy. Trusting is believing and believing has to come first before being set free.

BTW, no Calvinist I know of has ever said that God takes pleasure in the death of the wicked, even though they deserve it.

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Having this verse above quoted to me so many times would make one think that predestination being done according to His good pleasure would also mean that it is God's good pleasure that those who are predestined to destruction are so because of His good pleasure.
I've had Calvinist say that it's God's good pleasure that
some are predestined to destruction but not all Calvinist are not the same. They claim that if there predestined according to His will and good pleasure then those who are not predestined to adoption in Christ is also His good pleasure.
May God bless You;
Romanbear

 

[frumanchu]

God isn't required to do anything, but be God simply because, it's His nature to be. He may not have to save anyone, but He does. He may not have to offer Salvation to anyone, but He does. Thank God!

I agree. What I don't then understand is the insistence some people have to the doctrine of sovereign election as somehow being 'unfair' or 'unjust.' It is rediculous to say that if all men without exception are justly condemnable for their sin that God may only save all of them and not just some of them. Furthermore, the insistence that God is obligated or compelled by His very nature to do anything and everything He can to bring all men without exception is demonstrably false, and clearly set forth in Scripture as such. Given God's omniscience and omnipotence, there is truly no means of removing God from sovereignty over who is saved and who is not. As ortho and a few other have shown us, the solution seem to be to chissel away at the divine attributes of God in order to place the ultimate power of self-determination and causality back in the hands of men (all the while ignoring the Scriptures that tell us if such were the case, nobody would be saved).

Eternal life with Christ is the only treassure worth having and all who have the gospel preached to them. Are having a treasure offered to them. This treasure is desirable to everyone,but some are affraid that it's to good to be true. That there is a catch 22 somewhere that will make them regret seeking this treasure. The catch 22's, ranges from what will I have to give up to what will people think of me.

I disagree. You've reduced man's rejection of the Gospel to mere social concerns. Unregenerate man's rejection of God runs far deeper than that.

True representation but I would add that first the captive must trust that God will let Him have the Keys of Grace and mercy. Trusting is believing and believing has to come first before being set free.

As I said, even with the additions the analogy is by no means perfect. What I tried to convey with God approaching the one cage is God continuing to set forth the offer/commandment He had been the whole time, but this time doing so in a direct and personal means. Analogies are only as good as their representation of the truth they are trying to convey. If I get some time (which is at a premium right now) I'll further revise the analogy and see if I can better address the point you're trying to make.

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Having this verse above quoted to me so many times would make one think that predestination being done according to His good pleasure would also mean that it is God's good pleasure that those who are predestined to destruction are so because of His good pleasure.
I've had Calvinist say that it's God's good pleasure that
some are predestined to destruction but not all Calvinist are not the same. They claim that if there predestined according to His will and good pleasure then those who are not predestined to adoption in Christ is also His good pleasure.

In a sense, yes that is true.

Let me use a rough analogy to see if I can convey why. Assuming you have had children, you know that you have at times disciplined your children. You took no pleasure in the act of disciplining them, but in a larger sense you acted according to your desire to discipline your children having in mind the larger purpose of that discipline. In other words, if disciplining your children wasn't ultimately according to your good pleasure, your overall desire, then you would not do it. That doesn't mean that you take immediate pleasure in the act of disciplining your children.

God takes no immediate pleasure in the death of the wicked. Their death in and of itself, though it satisfies His justice, does not bring Him pleasure. However, the decision to leave unregenerate men in their sins to their own just condemnation must have been in accordance with a larger desire and purpose on His part.

Consider Rom 9:22-24...."What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"