The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals ^ | R. C. Sproul

[connectthedots]

Amen to that.

[P-Marlowe]

What about me?

You're question was derivative from Woody's question. So when Woody answers my original question, I'll tackle yours. So convince woody to answer my question and I'll answer yours. :-)

[drstevej]

***Where the Bible is silent, I am silent.***


No mention in the Bible of duct tape and otter costumes... or peanut butter, for that matter.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Amazing what contortions one will go through in a effort to support what simply is not there.

Verse 13 is there.

And it established Spiritual Re-birth as being PAST TENSE at the point of Present-Tense "Belief" in Verse 12.

Thus Demonstrating that Spiritual Regeneration precedes Belief, and that Man's Will (exactly as John 1:13 declares) has no part whatsoever in a man's Spiritual Regeneration.

Verse 13 is there -- and it eliminates Man's Will from the Equation of Spiritual Regeneration. Period.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

No mention in the Bible of duct tape and otter costumes... or peanut butter, for that matter.

So... you're safe, then?

Best you go celebrate with the missus!! (just don't tell me about it...)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You're question was derivative from Woody's question. So when Woody answers my original question, I'll tackle yours. So convince woody to answer my question and I'll answer yours. :-)

No dice.

Re-read the thread. My question was derivative from your discussion with Xzins in #189, not your discussion with Woody. So you've got no excuse for your non-responsiveness, Counselor.

Furthermore, if your complaint is that Woody has not answered your question, I'll answer it:

God "approved" Hitler's actions in exactly the same manner as the Rich Father in Luke 15:12 "approved" the transfer of the Prodigal Son's inheritance to that son -- that is, he granted his permission (if the Rich Father had not approved the transfer, no funds would be disbursed). Not that the Rich Father considered the Prodigal Son's actions to be "good", but that the Rich Father did grant his Permission and approve the disbursement.

Your question thusly answered, you are thus doubly without excuse for your non-responsiveness.

AND THUS:

So, when God permits Murder, is His Will to grant such Permission -- Imperfect?
236 posted on 02/09/2004 5:14:30 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian

Ahem....

[CCWoody]

***Furthermore, if your complaint is that Woody has not answered your question...***

Sometimes it is more fun to watch them hang themselves with their own tongue. Poor Marlowe probably still hasn't figured out how he actually accused his own faith.

Time to head for Texas' best award winning Llano Port and see just how many more ways he can hang himself....

Woody.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

By the way -- Yoda Sproul is being printed off my new printer tonight for Bible Study tomorrow, and should be forwarded up to my former Ruling Elder for RC's enjoyment by, God willing, this weekend.

I'll pass along any comments I hear...

[P-Marlowe]

So, when God permits Murder, is His Will to grant such Permission -- Imperfect?

No because it is in line with his ultimate will. That all things work together for good.

Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings,

Perfect will

and ye would not!

Permissive Will.

Luk 13:35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate:

Consequence of failure to yield to God's perfect will

and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Accomplishment of His Ultimate Will.

[Vernon]

It should be noted that John Calvin and followers formulate a supposed doctrine as though representing the New Testament. It is a highly refined individual system, not traceable as a whole to any previous age, and supplants the public teaching of centuries. Calvin, who hated Scholasticism, comes before us, as Luther had already done, in the shape of a Scholastic. His "pure doctrine" is gained by appealing, not to tradition, the "deposit" of faith, but to argument in abstract terms exercised upon Scripture. He is neither a critic nor a historian; he takes the Bible as something given; and he manipulates the Apostles' Creed in accordance with his own ideas. The "Institutes" are not a history of dogma, but a treatise, only not to be called an essay because of its peremptory tone. Calvin annihilates the entire space, with all its developments, which lies between the death of St. John and the sixteenth century. He does, indeed, quote St. Augustine, but he leaves out all that Catholic foundation on which the Doctor of Grace built."

To put it very simply, it is a tragic deviation from Biblical theology attained by parsing, proof texting, irrelevant argumentation, focusing on absolute authority that denies justice, grace - except as uniquely defined in various ways, mercy, and personal responsibility. All scripture must be understood from these presuppositions.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Well, take a look at it. The fact is that this verse has been tragically twisted.

You mean that every English (Spit!) Translation of the New Testament got it wrong? Fancy that! Why don't you just enlighten us as to what in your opinion is wrong. How pray tell, is it "twisted"? i'd really like to hear your analysis.

The actual word used here for "ordained" includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind.

Somebody should have told that to the translators of the New Testament.

Even if it did, which it does not, it is an incredible extension to even suggest that they persevered to the end.

i see. And just how long is "eternal life"?

[Vernon]

Isn't it amazing that people can reach the point of blaming God for the death of six million in the halocaust, instead of a deranged mind like Adolf Hitler? This certainly doesn't fit the idea of a "good" God, does it?

[connectthedots]

Seems that the FR Calvinists and the Mormons have something in common: they both think it was God's will that Adam and Eve eat of the tree God told them to not eat.

[drstevej]

Calvinists do not blame God for the Holocaust instead of Adolph Hitler, which is the implication of your post in the flow of this thread.

This is outrageous. You should hit abuse on your own post. Flag to the RM in case you choose not to.

[CCWoody]

***Isn't it amazing that people can reach the point of blaming God for the death of six million in the halocaust, instead of a deranged mind like Adolf Hitler? This certainly doesn't fit the idea of a "good" God, does it?***

That's OK, Vern, cause P-Marlowe has already admitted that, according to YOUR theology, God APPROVED of what Hitler was doing. That is, of course, unless you want to tell us that God couldn't stop Hitler.

So, which is it Vern, was God castrated or did he give his stamp of appproval to Hitler's actions?

"If, in fact, God did not approve of the actions of Hitler, then how is it that Hitler was able to do the things he did?" ~ P-Marlowe

Woody. [sips Port and fades back to watch the Arminians continue to choke on their own tongues]

[drstevej]

Woody, I suggest we abandon this line of discussion.

[Vernon]

Impossible...you have all the answers, as do the dwindling number of Calvinists as people understand the parsing and twisting.

The plain and simple sense of scripture is clear:

Acts 2:21: "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved..."

Romans 10:13: "For, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

As Adam Clarke so accurately states, "Those who seek for the plain meaning will find it.." "...but from their own creed, may continue to puzzle themselves and others; kindle their own fire, compass themselves with sparks, and walk in the light of their own fire, and of the sparks which they have kindled; and, in consequence, lie down in sorrow, having bidden adieu to the true meaning of a passage so very simple, taken in its connection, that one must wonder how it ever came to be misunderstood and misapplied."

2 Peter 3:16: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

[Vernon]

Woody, your recent post deserves no serious consideration. If you can get off the arrogance and condescension, perhaps you can explain how a "good" God could pound His chest and celebrate at the deaths of those in the ovens of Auschwitz and Dachau. The image of God is offensive and disgusting, but that is what you would have us believe, right?

Marlowe said absolutely nothing about MY theology, so you are totally wrong at that point. Most of us don't walk in "lockstep" like some others. I'm quite sure you have adequately twisted whatever Marlowe said.

[Alex Murphy]

Nice proof-texting you got going on there, Vern.