[hananiel]

Originally posted by Luke
(hananiel)
Maybe.......a world view?
> The message of the cross is foolishness to the world.

(Luke)
You don't have a clue what a worldview is, do you?

no!

[hananiel]

Luke:

Ok! I got carried away in attacking TULIP. you have a point in Unconditional Election. I had to pull some scripture to deny that. Let me understand this better and get back to you. I need to see just where I disagree and adresss that. Im afraid I threw the baby with the bathwater.

Ill come back tomorrow to address your post in this new light. But I dont think I agree with TD, IG, P I forget what L is.

Im not backing down all I said. Some parts of it. Hopefully this should set a more amicable setting for a debate.

btw, I was just messing with RECUSA. Im amused you took that seriously.

too sleepy!
Hananiel

[WooTang]

Proverbs 26:18-19
Like a madman who throws
Firebrands, arrows and death,
So is the man who deceives his neighbor,
And says, "Was I not joking?"

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by hananiel
Luke:

Ok! I got carried away in attacking TULIP. you have a point in Unconditional Election. I had to pull some scripture to deny that. Let me understand this better and get back to you. I need to see just where I disagree and adresss that. Im afraid I threw the baby with the bathwater.

Ill come back tomorrow to address your post in this new light. But I dont think I agree with TD, IG, P I forget what L is.

Im not backing down all I said. Some parts of it. Hopefully this should set a more amicable setting for a debate.

btw, I was just messing with RECUSA. Im amused you took that seriously.

too sleepy!
Hananiel

Why don't you just start a new thread, as Calvinism has little to do with the title of the thread.

[hananiel]

All these arguments are not mine. I found it comfortable to paste some arguments by John R Rice of Sword of the Lord. Of the TULIP only perseverance of saints is true and has ample biblical support. Others I will argue. This post is too long by necessity. I make an appeal to your duty, to persevere for a fellow human whose hope is also in Jesus. So dont not-debate because its too long and has been settled elsewhere. Also Since we started in this forum, I am posting it here. But please feel free to make a new thread.

First an appeal to calvinists. Allow for the inherent perspicuity of scripture. Unless some one read calvanism, he cannot be calvinist. Unless Calvin read Augustine, such an doctrine should never arise. But the truth should hold its own against untruth, if calvinism is not true, hence I will argue. I made the decision that Calvinism has to be wrong by seeing the contradictions in my experience. Anyway this is so that people know. Dont please attack this paragraph, my debate starts below this line.

NKJV Romans 8
(Luke)
You are assuming that we are called on the basis of our love for God or if our love for God is an ultimate result of our calling.
(Hananiel) I have concluded that we are called unconditionally - not conditioned by works. But whether we respond is by our will. I will try to convince you over this debate.

(Luke)
Seeing as the end of Romans 8 doesn't answer this question, we must look to other passages which do address this chronology. Passages like Romans 3 and Ephesians 2 are particularly relevant here.
(hananiel)
Romans 8:28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Romans 3:22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Who what? Believe. Do I read predestined to believe.
Ephesians 2: talks about grace and works is irrelevant here.

I cannot help but wonder at the providence of the Holy spirit in calvin proofing these verses. I cannot still understand how some on can read something else.

(Luke)
I am not debating that God has foreknowledge of events---I am debating that this is not what his election is based on.
(Hananiel) debate is not one unsupported assertion after another. from the proposition at hand, show inference after inference till you reach conclusion. These verses show Gods plan for those who believe. And that God foreknew them. There is nothing in the verse to show which occurs first. Your havent given any better reason than your preference.
What does it mean when you say someone knows some one? Their name? Their facial attributes? Their parents? Its your fallacy that knowledge of people precludes all qualifying attributes. It has to include at least one and consequently it can be love or just a trust in God, a belief.

(Luke)
The question, then, ought to be asked--are we capable of being able to love God apart from being called by Him? The answer to this question is clear.

This is the Word of God:
As it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; 11There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God (Romans 3:10-11, NASB)
(hananiel)
Your supporting verse says no one will seek Him. Your assertion is on if we can Love him. Even if I agree to that, it doesnt address what will happen when they are called as in presented with the Gospel. When God seeks men through his servants.

(Luke)
I believe God knew. I just don't believe that it's the basis of election.
(hananiel) You cannot make faith statements in a logical debate. Anyway I reconsider, my stand point. I agree to unconditional election as much as it involves works. But I dont believe that its a lie that whoever believes will be saved. Nor do I believe that when Jesus in his "reformed"(to the Jews) Law says,"The work of God is to believe in His son, he was lying.

(previous)
Clearly nothing here says he made them beleive. They had to do that act of making a choice a decision to believe in His son. It also indicates free will.
(Luke)
Nobody said anything about making people believe. And nowhere do these verses require any sort of autonomous will. Man is "free" to choose what he desires, which as we have seen from Scripture--is always sin (Gen. 6:5--others could be offered).
(Hananiel) Genesis 6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD .

Now you can suppose there was a reason for Noah finding favor and look for it.
Or you can assume that there was no reason that has been given for us to know.
You cannot give that to prove Noah was predestined. Does the verse read, and Noah was appointed / chosen / predestined to do something?

If at all you want to find the correct answer, you can read the next verse: Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.

It is true the saved are God's elect, "chosen... in him before the foundation of the world," as Ephesians 1:4 tells us. But it is wrong to make this election a whim of God whereby He saves some, compels them to be saved, and ****s some whom He has decided He does not wish to save. No, election is not "unconditional." It is simply that God knows who will trust Him when they hear the Gospel and chooses them to be carried through till they be "conformed to the image of his Son."

Anyway we cannot wrestle with the issue of election for too long because God being for all time, has let us try to understand that foreknowing us all in our past and predestinating those who believe for eternal life in our future. They will be some confusion in these verses. Lets settle the issue by going to other points of TULIP. Hence by necessity it will be better to not split this into parts.

Total Depravity

The doctrine that all are sinful, incapable of being saved or doing good without God's help, is true. But it is certainly not true that some never could repent, that God leaves some intentionally without light or calling. Consider these Scriptures:

a. "God... now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30). Can anyone accuse God of commanding people to do what He has made it impossible for them to do?

b. The apostle said, after hearing of Cornelius' conversion, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18). God granted repentance to the Jews; now they see repentance is granted "to the Gentiles" -- not to a few selected individuals, but to the Gentiles, as to Jews.

c. In John 1:9 we are told about Jesus, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." So every man in the world has light from God and from Christ, and so could be saved.

d. In John 12:32,33, Jesus said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die." When Jesus draws "all men" unto Him, then any one of "all men" could be saved.

e. Romans 1:18-21 says that after the flood, the races became heathen, idolators, barbarians, and are without excuse because the truth of God was manifested unto them. It says:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteonsness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousnes; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened"

f. Psalm 19:1-4 tells us:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun."

So there is a speech in nature to turn men to seek God. It speaks in all the world and every man is therefore accountable to God for it.

g. Romans 2:11-16 says:

"For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be jasitfied. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another,) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

Does that not mean that every person in the world is warned from God, either by the Word or by God speaking through the law He has written in their hearts, that is, their consciences?

And God, in this matter, has "no respect of persons," we are told here, giving every man alike a call to be saved. All who seek more light find enough light even as Cornelius did in Acts 10.

Man's sinfulness does not mean some men could not be saved.

h. We are told that "the gospel of Christ... is the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16). And again Hebrews 4:12 says, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" Does not that Scripture surely mean that the Scriptures themselves call men to repentance? And would you say, like the neo-orthodox teachers who do not accept the Bible as objectively the Word of God, that it becomes the Word of God to individuals only as it affects them? No, the very nature of the powerful Word of God, "sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow," means that it acts upon all who hear it. And again, we read in I Corinthians 1:21 that "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" And that means, of course, the preaching of the Gospel of the Word of God. The Word of God itself has supernatural power to affect the lost sinner, and it needs only to be "mixed with faith" (Heb. 4:9.) to save the sinner.

So every lost sinner is in some sense lighted by Jesus who "lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1:9), is somewhat moved by his conscience, is preached to by the creation about him, and when he hears the Word of God he is called by that. Then the fact of the depravity of every lost sinner does not mean there are some sinners who cannot be saved.

Limited Atonement

Christ did not die for all men, made no provision for them so they could possibly be saved. It really claims that God did not love all men enough to have Christ die for all, that His grace is limited, so is finite instead of infinite. But this is contradicted by many plain Scriptures.

a. John 3:16 says that "God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son" -- that it was so that "whosoever" could believe on Him and be saved. No limited love or atonement in John 3:16!

b. In John 1:29 we read the inspired statenent of John the Baptist about Jesus, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," Since Christ atoned for "the sin of the world," not just part of the sin of the world, it could not be a limited atonement.

c. First John 2:2 plainly says, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world." No limited atonement there!

d. Romans 5:20 says, "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Does not that mean God has grace for all the sin in the world, and even a great surplus? So the total number of people who will ever be born on the earth is a finite counted number that God knows. But the grace of God is infinite, much more than for those who will be saved, even much more than for all the sins of all the people in the world, so says the plain Word of God. Romans 5:20 leaves no limit on the atonement

e. First Timothy 4:10 tells of "the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." To those who believe, Christ is a special, personal, accepted Saviour. But to all who have not believed He is potentially and intentionally a Saviour. When God says in the Bible that He has provided a "Saviour of all men," what an arrogant wresting of Scriptures it is to say He did not provide and offer salvation for all!

f. Colossians 1:20 tells us that Christ, "having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself, by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." Note that that verse speaks, not of all accepting Christ, but of atonement for all, amnesty offered every rebel, a peace treaty prepared to end the war between God and the sinner. If Christ, "through the blood of his cross," intended "to reconcile all things unto himself," as that verse says, who dares put a limit on that atoning blood, so offered for all?

Irresistable Grace
All who are elected to be saved will be saved, that they cannot resist this special grace limited to them but will be saved when God calls. It would necessarily follow, first, that those not elected are irresistibly ****ed, cannot be saved; and, second, that since God works irresistibly to save or ****, Christians cannot affect the salvation or ****ation of sinners and need feel no responsibility or burden about it. But this is wrong, unscriptural, and no doubt Satan uses this doctrine of "Irresistible Grace" to lull Christians to disobedience and lack of compassion and burden to get people saved.

Consider these Scriptures which prove sinners can and do resist God's grace and many are lost who could be saved, and refuse Christ.

a. In II Peter 3:9 we read, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" Then God desires all men to be saved. And as we showed in section 1, all are enlightened to some degree, and called.

So many resist the grace of God.

b. We are commanded to pray for "all men," says I Timothy 2:1, and verses 3 and 4 tell us, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." We should pray for all men because God our Saviour "will have all men to be saved." So God would have all saved, but some will not be saved. So God's grace may he resisted.

c. We are told that Jesus wept over Jerusalem and told the sadness of His heart that His love and grace were refused. He said, in Matthew 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Jesus said, "I would," "and ye would not." So His grace was rejected. It was not irresistible.

d. In Proverbs 1:24,25, we have a clear statement that God, personified as Wisdom, calls and men refuse. That Scripture says, "Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof." And the context plainly teaches that the refusal is final and those who so refused God's wisdom and "did not choose the fear of the Lord" went to destruction. Surely, then, people do reject the call of God and resist His grace.

e. Paul says in Galatians 2:21, "I do not frustrate the grace of God?" That clearly shows then that those Galatian teachers who teach salvation by the law do frustrate the grace of God. Grace is not irresistible.

And did not you, my reader, long resist God's grace? Only very few were saved the first time they heard the Gospel at the first conviction of sin they felt! Did you not for a time resist God's grace? One who resists one time may resist the last time. And so many continue to resist and are lost forever.

f. In fact, the unpardonable sin is surely the sin of a lost man or woman, greatly enlightened and convicted, who comes to a final and irrevocable choice so that God's Spirit gives him up. Genesis 6:3 says, "My spirit shall not always strive with man." He does strive -- resisted to a certain point He sometimes strives no more, so the sin is unpardonable. If the Spirit who strives, then when men resist, may cease forever striving, then grace is not irresistible.

Hebrew 6:4-6 says, I think, the same thing:

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers af the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame"

The term "partakers of the Holy Ghost," Dr. Scofleld says, here is "Gr. metochous, going along with." So the Scripture here speaks of one not born of the Spirit but one who is followed, warned, convicted by the Holy Spirit going along with him. He has felt or "tasted" the "powers of the world to come," we are told; has "tasted the good word of God," but refuses Christ, still falls away from that conviction and, after coming to the verge of repentance, turns from it; it is impossible to renew such an one to repentance. So it is with those who, called, convicted, brought to the very crisis of decision, decide finally, eternally against Christ. Oh, every sinner who commits the unpardonable sin does resist the grace of God to the last. So we think did Pharaoh, Judas and, we think, those Pharisees of Matthew 12:24-32 who said Jesus cast out devils by Beelzebub but in heart knew better and blasphemously fought the Holy Spirit who convicted them. God's grace is not irresistible.

-Hananiel

[Ridley's Own]

:kmad: What in the hell does this have to do with the title of the thread? If you want to debate Calvinism/Arminianism, do so by either starting another thread, or by posting in one of the 400000000000000000000000000000 posts we have on the issue.

Would a moderator either shut the thread down or move the above post to another thread? :kmad:

[Chrysostom]

(smitty2622) Ok guys just a quick little observation we are the body of Christ a body has many parts none of them work on their own. It’s ok if the Calvinist is the thinking side and Arminians are the creative side. Two parts work well together. I wont mention where the rest of the parts go…

(Me) 2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.




(followerofJESUS) Why is it that people like to make their posts so LOOOOOOOOONG!

(Me) 2 Corinthians 10:5
We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

Titus 1:9
holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

Titus 2:1
But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.

Titus 2:7
in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified,




I don't have time to read through all that stuff!

(Me) Hebrews 6:1-3
Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we shall do, if God permits.

1 Corinthians 14:20
Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.




(Blindman) Why are there four gospels instead of one? Why were there twelve tribes of Israel instead of one single tribe? Isn't it possible that _diversity_ in denominations is a good thing? John presets a very different picture of Jesus than Mark, but I don't hear too many people suggesting that one Gospel is somehow more true than another... in fact, we need all four Gospels to get a complete picture of Christ.

Now, considering that it is impossible to know everything about God, is it necessarily a bad thing that different denominations concentrate on different aspects of God? It can become a problem if one denomination focuses _only_ on God's justice and not on His love or vice versa, but it seems to me that the vast majority of denominations vary mostly in how much _emphasis_ they place on different things.

(Me) But the difference isn't in emphasis. The difference is in truth. Luke and Hananiel hold contradictory soteriological views -- not views emphasizing one side or another.





(Blindman) The only danger, really, is when someone assumes that the picture they have of God is the _complete_ picture.

(Me) I don't see anybody on here do that. The Reformed perspective has always been to rely on God's sufficient, rather than exhaustive, providence.

[Chrysostom]

(Ridley's Own) What... does this have to do with the title of the thread?

(Me) Agreed.

[Chrysostom]

(jezusfrk) I believe that the church has become far too divided. How can this be remedied? What can we change in ourselves that can reverse this process?


In the first days of the church, the only division was geographical. Even then, they still communicated regularly. Today, churches that are three blocks away never speak. I think we put too much emphasis on the differences in cultural dogma than the love of Christ. Doesn't He deserve ONE bride?

(Me) I once saw a man write something on an internet bulletin board (another one), copied it down, proliferated it with Luke, and now share it with you, friend:

We tolerate too much. We tolerate incorrect doctrine. We tolerate ineffective evangelism. We tolerate poor church leadership. We tolerate corrupt stewardship. We tolerate inaction. We tolerate all of these things, and we have the present state of the church to show for it; that being: a fat, lazy American Bride of Christ, who tolerates sin, ignores the Bible, and wastes her resources. If I have to step on toes to make people realize how BAD things are in the American Church...SO BE IT! I see no where in scripture where it says "Thou shalt not step on toes" (read: "offend")"
-ChristianSkeptic (author unknown)

[smitty2622]

Me) 2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Smitty: What do you mean by this? What I said was said assuming both put Christ first and he is the ONE. That and it was meant to be a little funny.. :kwink:


Peace

[Chrysostom]

(smitty2622) Smitty: What do you mean by this? What I said was said assuming both put Christ first and he is the ONE. That and it was meant to be a little funny.. :kwink:

(Me) You implied that both were equally correct: "It’s ok if the Calvinist is the thinking side and Arminians are the creative side. Two parts work well together." Although I do disagree with both generalizations.

[Blindman]

Originally posted by mustbenothing
(Me) But the difference isn't in emphasis. The difference is in truth. Luke and Hananiel hold contradictory soteriological views -- not views emphasizing one side or another.

That depends on your perspective... I personally feel that both Calvinism and Arminianism are incomplete pictures of how salvation works, and that both have arisen due to people trying to explain how God works in terms comprehensible to human beings.

I believe that salvation requires and action both on our part _and_ on God's part. So for me, Calvinists and Arminians are just emphasizing two different aspects of the same thing - God's choice and our choice, both of which are present.

That is to say, the main question in soteriology is "Does God choose us, or do we choose God?" And I personally believe that the answer is "yes."

[smitty2622]

Now that I could agree with we chose him because he chose us.


Peace

[hananiel]

Originally posted by smitty2622
Now that I could agree with we chose him because he chose us.
Peace

Ill think I agree to that.
*edit* Agree that God chose men - though he could choose to forsake them, and came down and died for us,so that- Whoever believes in Him should not perish.

We who are saved choose God over to have him as our personal Lord and saviour and thus find victory over sin, peace, joy and an abundant life. */edit*

I am not Arminian. I believe once saved always saved. Or they were faking it. Or thought thought were saved.

I wrote an apology inside that huge mail for posting it here. If some mod can move it Im fine.

-Hananiel

[Chrysostom]

(Blindman) That depends on your perspective... I personally feel that both Calvinism and Arminianism are incomplete pictures of how salvation works, and that both have arisen due to people trying to explain how God works in terms comprehensible to human beings.

(Me) I don't really see how my perspective was wrong -- whether or not either Calvinism or Arminianism is correct/incorrect, I think it's clear that the two views presented by these two are logically irreconcilable. They cannot both be true at the same time. I'm talking about the difference between Luke's Calvinist perspective and hananiel's freewill perspective. The two perspectives are contradictory, regardless of the actual truth of one or the other. In other words, the argument between these two is not just emphasis -- it's an actual dialogue between views.

I would also seek to argue that God's ways are not exhaustively comprehensible by modern man, but they have been made sufficiently palatable for our own understanding in God's revelation. Though the secret things are of the Lord, and His ways higher than our own, the things revealed to us and given to us belong to us that we might know them (Deuteronomy 29:29). In accordance with that truth, I we ought to discuss soteriology on the basis of the things revealed -- something I think Luke and hananiel are doing.




(Blindman) I believe that salvation requires and action both on our part _and_ on God's part. So for me, Calvinists and Arminians are just emphasizing two different aspects of the same thing - God's choice and our choice, both of which are present.

That is to say, the main question in soteriology is "Does God choose us, or do we choose God?" And I personally believe that the answer is "yes."

(Me) Both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm that BOTH choose the other. Modern day freewillers tend to (but don't always) reject the belief that God chooses man. I don't think we could find a Calvinist theologian that would tell you man doesn't choose God, though.