Posted on 12/29/2002 9:23:52 PM PST by PFKEY
He said the opposite?
He state that the verses referring back to Psa.2:7 were dealing the Incarnation.
Then, realizing the implications of that statement he goes on and states that it has nothing to do with Christ's Sonship.
Well, that is exactly what the verse is talking about, the Son being begotten in a particular day.
i told you what page the citation is on, look at it and tell us just where in that citation Vine agrees that begetting in Psalm 2:7 is dealing with the incarnation.
You posted it when he commented on Hebrews!
Now, what his opinion after that is is irrevelant! He is just contradicting himself! Since he never said that begetting in Psalm 2:7 is dealing with the incarnation, the only person he is "contradicting" is you!
No, because the verses that were referring back to Psa.2 are dealing with the Incarnation, as he himself said.
He doesn't like it, but there it is, the word 'beget' means Christ being born. Sometimes beget does mean born, but not in Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, or Hebrews 5:5
It doesn't? That is not what you posted Vine as saying!
So, if it doesn't mean being born, what does the verse say then?
I asked you that once before, but you did not answer it.
Give me your Greek translation of Acts 13:33, Heb.1:13, and Heb.5:5
SO, WHY WOULD VINE SAY THAT IT DOES NOT INDICATE CHRIST BECAME THE SON OF GOD AT HIS BIRTH? He says that because he knew the bible, and the rules of the Greek language.
He was following the traditional view as you have noted by citing the Councils.
So, what has to do with the fact that he admitted that in the New Testament passages they are referring to the birth of Christ.
First off, you need realise that the word gennao is in the perfect, not present tense in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5.
Here we go with the tensegame.
Now, you know full well, that in the New Testament tenses are translated in many different ways.
The translators of the KJV knew that the Greek perfect tense does not correspond with the English perfect tense. They knew that English has no tense that is the equivalent to the Greek perfect active, so, what to do? The translators decided to get it as close as the English language allowed. Here is what the Greek perfect active means: "The Greek perfect tense denotes a present state resultant upon a past action. Machen, J. Gresham, New Testament Greek for Beginners, p.187 DEFINITION The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes and event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker). Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for "indicating not the past action as such but the present 'state of affairs' resulting from the past action".(4) Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. p.573 The KJV translators, realising that the emphasis was on the present result of an event that happened in past time translated the Greek perfect tense with the English present. Note that to this day, no translation has equaled the KJV in rendering the Greek perfect tense into English.
You are very funny.
Ofcourse,the event happened in past time, the New Testament books were written after the Incarnation.
Thus, the past event is a present reality, just like 'it is finished' is in the Perfect tense and the reality is ongoing one.
Since the event recorded in the New Testament is a citation of Psalm 2:7, the event happened before David was inspired by God to compose Psalm 2!
The New Testament quotes are citing the Psalm as a partially completed prophecy.
The first part, the Incarnation is now an historical fact,while the future event, the reign of Christ as King is yet future.
Now shall we look at the Hebrew?
In Hebrew thinking an action is regarded as being either completed or incompleted. Hebrew, therefore knows of no past, present or future tenses, but has instead a perfect and an Imperfect (which in a context, lend themselves to a varity of shades of meaning (A Practical Grammer for Classical Hebrew, Weingreen)
Now, in the Hebrew, the word for 'I will' is in the imperfect tense, representing uncompleted action.
Thus, it cannot be an eternal act.
The Hebrew word for begotten is in the Perfect tense showing a completed act because it is a prophetic fact as much as reality when it was predicted as when it actually occured in history.
For an example of this see Hebrews 10:5 which cites Psa.40:6 and the words in that Psalm mine ears thou hast opened' are in the perfect tense, showing that as far as God was concerned it was an historical reality that had not yet occured.
Thus, the verses in the New Testament, as admited by Vine, refer to the Incarnation, and that was predicted in Psa.2:7.
And that (in that day) is when the Eternal Logos, became the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Once again, the rightly divided word of God has made you a liar and a heretic. You need to repent or face the lake of fire...turn or burn!
I think you need a refresher course on reading English
Ok, God knew what choices Pharoah would make, not God making them for him.
That means that there was volition on the part of Pharoah and it was this negative volition that resulted in God 'hardening' him.
God will put strong delusion on those who reject His truth.
He sent a lying spirit to Ahab to deceive him!
However there came a time when God HIMSELF acted so that they would know He was God..
And who questions that?
Dec no one has said that man does not make choices..or that he has a human volition. But God made each of us so that He knows what our choices will be.
No one questions that God knows what our decisions will be, but they are freely made.
God had made Pharoah..He knew the heart of that man..God made him to act (choose) in the way He did. God was not surprised
No, God is not surprised, but it was not because God made Pharoah a particular way since even Mannasah repented!
Men choose to reject the truth.
God did foresee that this Pharoah would reject him and God used him for His glory.
God foresaw that the Pharoah of Joseph's day would be kind to Joseph and bring the people of Israel in.
No one is saying that God is inactive in history, but only that free will decisions that God does not want (like our sins) are allowed by God because we are responsible for them.
God knows all things and directs some things and allows others all of which goes to the completion of Plan and His glory.
No, my objection is that Calvinists on these threads have maintained that God must regenerate someone first before that person can believe because spiritual death is likened to a dead corpse.
The Arminians/Baptists have held that while man is 'dead' in trespass and sins, that death is separation from God.
If God reaches out and gives light into the darkness so the Gospel can be understood, then a decision can be made for or against Christ (2Cor.4:4)
Now, you are telling us that such a will does exist and God's regenerating power must! deal differently with each individual because of the various strengths of each man's will!
Double-talk!
Well, that just goes to show you once again -- you hate the Bible, not Calvinism. The Bible says that prior to Regeneration, Paul was Spiritually Dead.
Amazing how you guys continually mix up the two.
Yes, Saul was spiritually dead, but he was resisting, thus showing that spiritually dead men have a will that can resist God or respond to Him.
That was the case that Arminius and Wesley made, grace can be accepted or rejected, but it is always grace.
I'm very sorry that you hate the Bible. That makes me sad.
Oh, do not be sad, I do not hate the Bible.
I do not even hate Calvinists.
I hate Calvinism because God told us to hate every false thing!
Romans 8:8 -- So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. So, why is it again that you preach the anti-Biblical belief that Unregenerate Men choose the God-pleasing choice to Repent unto Jesus, when Romans 8:8 explicitly states that Unregenerate Men NEVER do that which is God-pleasing? Thrill me with your wisdom. Because that verse is dealing with the carnal man who is a believer out of fellowship, not a natural man who is a unbeliever. Chapter 8 in Romans is dealing with believers not unbelievers! Oops. I'm sorry, dippity-doo-dah, that little dodge won't work. See, Paul expressly states in the passage itself that he is talking about the Unregenerate unbelievers as being "in the flesh", and the Regenerate believers as being "in the Spirit".
Ofcourse, when you are carnal that is where you go back to.
That is what Paul is discussing in Romans 7.
See the work by L.S. Chafer, He that is Spiritual for further details.
ROMANS 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. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 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. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. On the one hand, IF you believe that those who are Once Saved are Always Saved, then you CANNOT say that the "Carnal" in this passage are back-slidden believers, because Paul says that the Carnal do not belong to Christ and do not have the Spirit and that Christ does not dwell in them.
I can't?
Those caught in sin in Acts 5 and 1Cor.5 were all believers who were in the flesh.
The ones that died in Acts 5 went to heaven, and if the man in incest had not repented he would have died and gone to heaven also.
Those of us who believe in eternal security understand that there are two natures at war with one another.
A new nature and an Old nature (Rom.7). If you stay in your Old Nature you will reap discipline and judgement on earth (Heb.12, 1Jn.5) and lose rewards in heaven (1Cor.3), but you do not lose your salvation.
This, by the way, is only for the New Testament believer, not the Old Testament who was not 'in' Christ as we are.
So, unless you believe that a believer's salvation belonging to Christ is some kind of in-again, out-again revolving door, then Paul is obviously talking about unregenerate unbelievers when he is talking about those who don't belong to Christ and don't have the Spirit and Christ doesn't dwell in them. Unbelievers. Unless you think that Salvation is a revolving door.
We separate the two between standing and state.
Our Standing is in Christ and therefore we are eternally secure.
Our state can change based on wheather we are in the flesh or in fellowship.
And that means: The UnRegenerate cannot please God. Which of course, disqualifies your entire theology as a satanic lie against God, against the Bible, and against the One True Gospel. An enemy of Christ, lest ye repent.
It is clear you have not studied what the Baptist view on eternal security is.
The Arminians seem to have this same problem.
Neither relate it to being in union with Christ, which is unique to the Church age.
Really?
If possible, I'd like to see a proof from Scripture that Ananias and Sapphira, and the Incestuous Corinthian, were in fact Regenerate Believers. "Outward profession" or "local church membership" won't do, unless you think that everyone who professes Christianity outwardly, including those who say it and do not mean it, is uniformly Saved.
A Scriptural proof-text indicating that these specific individuals were Saved Christian Believers.
I don't think it affects the outcome of the debate much, but I'd like to see if you can back up the claimed assertion. Thanks.
Those of us who believe in eternal security understand that there are two natures at war with one another.
Mmm. This is true enough. Thanks for saying so; we'll return to this.
Paul says that the Carnal do not belong to Christ and do not have the Spirit and that Christ does not dwell in them. So, unless you believe that a believer's salvation belonging to Christ is some kind of in-again, out-again revolving door, then Paul is obviously talking about unregenerate unbelievers when he is talking about those who don't belong to Christ and don't have the Spirit and Christ doesn't dwell in them. Unbelievers. Unless you think that Salvation is a revolving door. ~~ We separate the two between standing and state. Our Standing is in Christ and therefore we are eternally secure. Our state can change based on wheather we are in the flesh or in fellowship.
Nope. That little dodge still won't work.
Believers who are in a state of imperfect fellowship (which is all of us on this present Earth), are never in a "state" of not belonging to Christ (Romans 8:9). Believers who are in a state of imperfect fellowship, are never in a "state" of not being the dwelling of the Spirit (Romans 8:9). Believers who are in a state of imperfect fellowship, are never in a "state" of not having Christ in them (Romans 8:10).
After all... when is it ever a FACT that the Saved Christian Believer does not belong to Christ? If it's not a FACT, it's just something you made up to serve your false doctrines.
And, as you yourself admit, "those of us who believe in eternal security understand that there are two natures at war with one another". Yet this would not be true of a "backslidden believer" whose Temple of the Spirit is a revolving door -- who, as you preach, does not have Christ in them and who is not a dwelling of the Spirit, for then there is neither Christ nor Spirit inside them at war against the Law of Sin inside them!!
After all... when is it ever a FACT that the Saved Christian Believer does not have Christ in them, and is not a dwelling of the Spirit? If it's not a FACT, it's just something you made up to serve your false doctrines.
Thus, Paul is obviously talking about unregenerate unbelievers when he is talking about those who do not belong to Christ and do not have Christ in them and who are not the dwell of the Spirit. Unbelievers.
And that means:
Which of course, disqualifies your entire theology as a satanic lie against God, against the Bible, and against the One True Gospel.
An enemy of Christ, lest ye repent.
Gee, how do I know that Calvin himself was saved?
I mean having people burned at the stake for theological disagreements is pretty unChristian behaviour!
A Scriptural proof-text indicating that these specific individuals were Saved Christian Believers. I don't think it affects the outcome of the debate much, but I'd like to see if you can back up the claimed assertion. Thanks.
Well, anyone can assert they are believers and not be. I think it would have been very difficult for an unbeliever sneak in among the flock with the Apostles present.
In the case for the man in incest, Paul urges that the Corinthian church with anyone who is 'called a brother' who is committing fornication, or is covertous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortionar'(1Cor.5:11). These were fellow Christians who were doing these things.
Those of us who believe in eternal security understand that there are two natures at war with one another. Mmm. This is true enough. Thanks for saying so; we'll return to this. Paul says that the Carnal do not belong to Christ and do not have the Spirit and that Christ does not dwell in them.
It says in Rom.8:9-10 that if we have the Spirit of Christ, our flesh is dead to us.
Thus, we should not be going back to it (as stated in Romans 7)
Paul goes on to say that if you live after the flesh you will die, and so you shall, you will die as they did in Acts.5, because there is a sin unto death (1Jn.5)
So, unless you believe that a believer's salvation belonging to Christ is some kind of in-again, out-again revolving door, then Paul is obviously talking about unregenerate unbelievers when he is talking about those who don't belong to Christ and don't have the Spirit and Christ doesn't dwell in them. Unbelievers. Unless you think that Salvation is a revolving door. ~~ We separate the two between standing and state. Our Standing is in Christ and therefore we are eternally secure. Our state can change based on wheather we are in the flesh or in fellowship. Nope. That little dodge still won't work. Believers who are in a state of imperfect fellowship (which is all of us on this present Earth), are never in a "state" of not belonging to Christ (Romans 8:9).
When you are out of fellowship (in sin) you have grieved and quenched the Holy Spirit (Eph.4,1Thess.5) and thus, are in the flesh, not in the Spirit.
Your standing is In Christ, but your state is carnality, you are not controled by the Spirit, else you would not be sinning.
Believers who are in a state of imperfect fellowship, are never in a "state" of not being the dwelling of the Spirit (Romans 8:9). Believers who are in a state of imperfect fellowship, are never in a "state" of not having Christ in them (Romans 8:10).
No one said anything differently.
The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1Cor.6:19) thus, the believer is never out of union with Christ.
After all... when is it ever a FACT that the Saved Christian Believer does not belong to Christ? If it's not a FACT, it's just something you made up to serve your false doctrines. And, as you yourself admit, "those of us who believe in eternal security understand that there are two natures at war with one another". Yet this would not be true of a "backslidden believer" whose Temple of the Spirit is a revolving door -- who, as you preach, does not have Christ in them and who is not a dwelling of the Spirit, for then there is neither Christ nor Spirit inside them at war against the Law of Sin inside them!! After all... when is it ever a FACT that the Saved Christian Believer does not have Christ in them, and is not a dwelling of the Spirit? If it's not a FACT, it's just something you made up to serve your false doctrines. Thus, Paul is obviously talking about unregenerate unbelievers when he is talking about those who do not belong to Christ and do not have Christ in them and who are not the dwell of the Spirit. Unbelievers. And that means: The UnRegenerate cannot please God. Which of course, disqualifies your entire theology as a satanic lie against God, against the Bible, and against the One True Gospel. An enemy of Christ, lest ye repent.
Boy, you sure love to hear yourself talk don't you?
So, when you good, Godly, saved, elect, Calvinists sin, what status are you in?
Is God still controlling your lives after you sin?
Whose will in involved in the sinning God's or yours?
What happened to irresistable grace?
Here are some notes from the Ryrie Study Bible (Ryrie being a Calvinist)
(1Cor.2:14) The natural man. i.e. an unsaved man, See Jude 19, where the same word is used (translated 'sensual', to include a person who does not have the Spirit Rom.8:9
(1Cor.3:1) Carnal. The Greek word sarkinos means 'fleshly' or 'in the flesh' with the idea of weakness: Carnal Christians (brethren) are 'babes in Christ'(i.e.undeveloped) who cannot understand the deeper truths of the Word of God (vs.2) and who are characterized by strife (v.3)
Well, now who does that sound like?
It sounds like everyone in the Cabal!
Heb.5:12!
Dec you refuse the CLEAR word of God ..and twist it to fit your doctrine
God speaks clearly here and give his purpose..you do not like it but God said it
Exd 11:10 And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Deu 2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as [appeareth] this day.
You need to read this soberly dec
Deu 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
The plan of God is not about men it is about HIM...it is about His Glory
Pro 20:12 The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them.
Jhn 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
That means that there was volition on the part of Pharoah and it was this negative volition that resulted in God 'hardening' him.
How much of YOUR life have you chosen dec? How much was decided for you..before the foundation of the earth?
And when you sin, whose will are you doing, God's or your own.
The Sovereign decisions of God and the free will choices of men come together in time.
I know the decisions to reject God with sin were mine and not His, how about you?
You blaming God for making you are sinner and holding Him responsible for everything bad that everything happened in your life?
I mean He could stop you from sinning could He not?
So, I guess since He could stop you and didn't, He is responsible for the sin (like you guys claim with Lucifer and Adam) and thus, wants sin to abound for His own glory-PRAISE GOD!
Take your fake Christian piety somewhere else.
Your depraved system of thinking makes God the author of everything evil in the world (and most of you guys do not even have the intellectual courage to admit that is exactly what you are saying)
Do not bother me with your selective proof-texting anymore.
I have seen the fruit of your life on these posts since you were seduced into believing the lie of Calvinism and you have changed for the worse not the better.
Let anyone check your posts pre-Calvinist and Post-Calvinist and see the different spirit at work.
Dec you give personal insults and not answers..Does God or does He not harden hearts to achieve His purposes according to the infallible word of God?
You post an article by some one that says Gods word says He hardened heart ..but it doesn't mean it..It must mean what I say it means..
Doesn't Jesus confirm that in the NT?
I believe God is like a prism...and when you hold Him to the light you see different things...
I post an article stating that God does harden hearts and you ask if He does?
What you really do not like is that the 'hardening' occurs because mans negative decisions (2Thess.2:11), not because God decided to harden one and leave another unhardened.
For instance, God always knew that Pharoah would reject Him,(of Pharoah's own free will), thus, for that reason He 'raised him up' to show him as an example of the futility of resisting God.
Personally, I think you are a perfect example of that 'hardening' since you are under 'strong delusion'
We are commanded in the Bible to resist 'hardening'
Exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest anyone of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Heb.3:13)
Now, that warning is to believers, so pay heed!
The NT context that Psalm 2:7 is cited in suggest that the Psalm is a reference to the death and resurrection:
29) And when they had fullfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher.
30) But God raised him from the dead:
31) And he was deen bany days of them which came up withim him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
32) And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the send psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.Acts 13:29-33 KJV
The same is true of Hebrews 1:5:
1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Likewise, Hebrews 5:5 is in the context of the attonement not the incarnation.
Here we go with the tensegame.
Now, you know full well, that in the New Testament tenses are translated in many different ways.
You already know that the KJV is consistent with the perfect tense. Where it does it does so for good contextual reasons. These particular passages are quotations of Psalm 2:7.
You are very funny.
Thanks, i work very hard at my sense of humour, but the fact is that i am serious in this matter.
Ofcourse,the event happened in past time, the New Testament books were written after the Incarnation.
They were written after the resurrection as well, but Psalm 2:7 was not
Thus, the past event is a present reality, just like 'it is finished' is in the Perfect tense and the reality is ongoing one.
Such is the case in Psalm 2. John 19:30 is a bad example, because the context is such that it recalled an event that happened in present time in the narrative, and the effect remains. It is still translated in the English by the present tense, because the emphasis is on the present effect. A better example of what you are saying is found where you see the phrase "It is written", which is almost always perfect tense.
The New Testament quotes are citing the Psalm as a partially completed prophecy.
Actually, at the time of the New Testament the entire prophecy was fullfilled.
The first part, the Incarnation is now an historical fact,while the future event, the reign of Christ as King is yet future.
That is clever, but not logically consistent, nor consistent with the Psalm itself. i don't believe that you intended to say that "The first part, the Incarnation...", because the first part reads I will declare the decree:". We will return to this shortly. The logical flaw is that you are presuming that "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." refers to the Incarnation in order to prove that it refers to the Incarnation.
Now shall we look at the Hebrew?
Sure, why not?
In Hebrew thinking an action is regarded as being either completed or incompleted. Hebrew, therefore knows of no past, present or future tenses, but has instead a perfect and an Imperfect (which in a context, lend themselves to a varity of shades of meaning (A Practical Grammer for Classical Hebrew, Weingreen)
Now, in the Hebrew, the word for 'I will' is in the imperfect tense, representing uncompleted action.
And so it is! The only difficulty that i have is that "I will" is the first part of Psalm 2:7, and refers to "declare the decree". That the decree was declared in future time from the time of the Psalm is not in dispute.
Thus, it cannot be an eternal act.
i wouldn't be so sure about that, since i can think of no passages where God revoked the decree. It may have happened in linear time/space, but there is no reason to say that it will not continue onto eternity.
The Hebrew word for begotten is in the Perfect tense showing a completed act because it is a prophetic fact as much as reality when it was predicted as when it actually occured in history.
Yes, exactly, it was a prophetic fact as much as reality when God made the decree in history, but it does not follow that it was not in existence before the decree was is spoken in Psalm 2:7. The result being that this passage cannot be used to prove that The Word existing from eternity became the Son of God at the time of his Incarnation
For an example of this see Hebrews 10:5 which cites Psa.40:6 and the words in that Psalm mine ears thou hast opened' are in the perfect tense, showing that as far as God was concerned it was an historical reality that had not yet occured.
This is irrelevant, since the words 'mine ears thu hast opened' are not cited in Hebrews 10:5. The author of Hebrews (roughly) quoted the Septuagent, which does not have the phrase.
Once again, you have failed to prove that what the Christian church as a whole has believed since the beginning is incorrect.
Dec when does man let God play God in your play? Man has the lead ...and god a supporting role?
For instance, God always knew that Pharoah would reject Him,(of Pharoah's own free will), thus, for that reason He 'raised him up' to show him as an example of the futility of resisting God.
If God foreknew that he was going to harden his heart couldn't God have softened it instead of slaughtering all those egyptian babies?
It teaches the free offer and predestination.
i rejoice that both: 1: God gives truth to you; 2: you are able to acknowlege it as truth.
There is a secondary concern that i address in order to ease your mind.
The term double predestination is loaded and ambiguous. You should ask someone to define it before proceeding. Even among Calvinists, that term is used to mean different things. When you use the term "double predestination", you may not be meaning the same thing that i do when i use the term.
When i hear the term "double predestination", i am thinking of a doctrine, based on the Order of divine decrees that is a small, distinct minority view within Calvinism. It is in fact, fatalism, which could be called "anti-Calvinism".
i strongly suggest that you research the term, and understand the variety of meaning associated with it. Perhaps it will ease your mind somewhat. For the record... i do not hold to the view that God delibertly selected and created certain people exclusively for the purpose of reprobation, neither do most Calvinists.
Actually, the RCC has weirdly renounced Augustine's clear position by pretending that Augustine did not teach absolute predestination in the first place. This is not honest. If the RCC wants to disagree with Augustine about what the RCC now thinks the Scriptures are saying, that's okay. But for them to pretend that Augustine agrees with them is a pretty monstrous falsehood.
One of Rome's best scholars is actually a lone voice within the RCC trying to set the record straight. Although he does not agree with Augustine, he affirms that Augustine did teach an absolute, double predestination. If he is correct about what Augustine taught (and he definitely is), the RCC has been lying for nearly five centuries.
(OP can give you the details concerning Fr.Most.)
And that mess of prevarication by Rome--which Most has revealed through his own scholarship--doesn't exactly enhance the credibility of the RCC in its denial of double predestination. My point, of course, is that reprobates will tend to deny the doctrine of reprobation. This is practically self-evident from the doctrine of reprobation, isn't it?
Sure it is. So, please be careful. The doctrine of reprobation has teeth--great big ones.
I believe as evidenced in your churches, that double predestination leads to debates about futility in evangelizing.
Ain't no such debate in MY church, WriteOn.
See my earlier comments. Calvinists affirm both the free offer of the gospel and the fact of absolute predestination--just as Augustine did. Augustine and the mainstream Reformers did not see these as contradictory ideas, but as complementary Truths. The free offer is one of the crucial mechanisms of God's absolute predestination.
The free offer is exceedingly precious to Calvinists, for reasons which you apparently cannot fathom.
I'm certainly not the only one who believes the offer is to *all* (I guess my list isn't so much JUNK)
No, your argument from the list was junk. I even went to the trouble of making this distinction about the "junk" idea. So, now I will hold your feet to the fire. Your argument was junk in that you have continued to "reason," in defiance of other clear Scriptures, that the free offer and the doctrine of absolute predestination are contradictory ideas. But they aren't. You don't understand the problem which the fallen sinner's free will poses in the theology of original sin.
Sin is a bigger disaster than you, as a fallen sinner, have any native ability for appreciating.
The Presbyterian John Murray from Murray's defense of the well-meant offer, The Free Offer of the Gospel, (John Murray, former Westminster Seminary professor, whom Cornelius Van Til called "a great exegete of the Word of God",) declared, "God does not wish that any men should perish. His wish is rather that all should enter upon life eternal by coming to repentance. The language in this part of the verse is so absolute that it is highly unnatural to envisage Peter as meaning merely that God does not wish that any believers should perish.
I fully agree with the Marrow position concerning the well-meant offer. But I would point out that Murray was not clear in stating the Marrow position in the above paragraph. He actually hung too much on the word "merely." This is the operative word in the controversy.
You haven't really figured out what the controversy is yet, so the rhetorical force of the "merely" has escaped you.
The point here is that verses like 2 Peter 3:9 are presenting a sincere free offer. But as soon as you try to use the verse against the other teaching contained in the Bible--i.e., the Bible's clear teaching concerning God's absolute predestination--the verse STOPS you in your tracks.
The point here is that the grammar of the verse does preserve the doctrine of predestination even if it is not in and of itself asserting it in an emphatic way. This is part of the inspiration of the Scriptures. It just happens to be a point of inspiration which Murray was not concerned to elucidate in his refutation of hyper-Calvinism.
Murray's book was written with the specific goal of attacking hyper-Calvinists, not that of trying to address your Arminian error. The Arminian and the hyper-Calvinist are not really different in some ways. They both maintain that the free offer and the doctrine of absolute predestination cannot both be true. The hyper-Calvinist says that if the doctrine of absolute predestination is true, then the free offer cannot be true.
The Arminian, on the other hand, emphasizes that if the free offer is true, then the doctrine of absolute predestination cannot be true.
The Calvinist points out that both positions are dangerous and even potentially deadly. The Calvinist points out that the hyper-Calvinist is saying that inasmuch as the doctrine of absolute predestination is true, then the free offer which is central to the gospel itself is a lie. The Calvinist points out that hyper-Calvinism is tantamount to denying the gospel itself--inasmuch as the gospel is that which is freely offerable.
The Calvinist goes on to point out that the Arminian is inadvertently denying the gospel in essentially the same way. Why? Because the doctrine of absolute predestination is true--and yet the Arminian unabashedly "reasons" that if that doctrine is true, then the free offer cannot be true.
So, the Arminian is, oddly enough, denying the free offer of the gospel without even realizing it.
So, you need to quit trying to reason through these things and submit to the Truth of Scripture. You need to quit trying to set the free offer against the doctrine of predestination. If you are so dead-set on "reasoning" your way through these things, you need to start being more reasonable. You need start admitting that your reasoning faculty is SINFUL.
And the other writers which you quoted in your post support me in this warning to you.
***
I would also point out that your determination to abuse the free offer verses, i.e., to try to use them in a defense of your hyper-Calvinistic (grin) mindset, is just a ploy by Satan to keep you from noticing that the Bible does teach both absolute predestination and the free offer.
Of course, you are not really a hyper-Calvinist, even if you reason in the same wickedly false way as the hyper-Calvinists do. That being the case, I would urge you to claim the free offer--but also go on to address all the texts which DO teach God's absolute predestination.
There are quite a lot of them.
(Hey, if Augustine had no problem seeing these things of true predestination and the free offer as complementary, why in the world can't you be as bright as he was?)
Generally, the only people who believe that "double predestination leads to debates about futility in evangelizing", are people who don't believe in double predestination -- while Double-Predestinarian Calvinists go right on Evangelizing, apparently oblivious to the careful reasoning of their opponents claiming that they should not (the nerve!!).
There are a few congregations of so-called "Hardshell Baptists" on the western foothils of the Appalachians and a couple other small regions who have officially made Hyper-Calvinism their creed and so do not evangelize (they preach the Cross in their sermons, but you have to come to them); but judging the 500 year history of Calvinist evangelism (arguably the most evangelistic explosion of Christianity since the Apostles) by a few heretical "baptists" who have themselves terminated communion with the overall Baptist Confession, is sorta like judging the Roman Catholic Church by an offshoot of an offshoot of the Lefebvrist SSPX -- not very intellectually honest, just a way of "scoring your point" when all other arguments have failed to find purchase.
GOD, BY AN ETERNAL RESOLVE OF HIS WILL, PREDESTINES CERTAIN MEN, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR FORESEEN SINS, TO ETERNAL REJECTION
but there is no "de fide" definition of reprobation, however there is a general teaching of the Catholic Church that there is a conditioned positive Reprobation, that is, it occurs with consideration of foreseen future demerits (post et propter praevisa demerita). The conditional nature of Positive Reprobation is demanded by the generality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. This excludes God's desiring in advance the damnation of certain men (cf. 1 Tim 2:4, Ezek 33:11, 2 Pet 3:9)
When I say I don't believe in reprobation, I mean I don't believe in unconditional positive reprobation. Whereas the Westminster Confession of Faith emphatically repudiates a conditional reprobation.
Augustine's positions on absolute predestination were never a dogma of the Catholic Church, so there was no need to pretend that Augustine didn't teach absolute predestination. The RCC sought a doctrine that balanced the universal nature of the free offer, free will and predestination.
Now you have to admit that the "well-meant offer" and double predestination are hard to reconcile, to quote yourself:"The point here is that verses like 2 Peter 3:9 are presenting a sincere free offer. But as soon as you try to use the verse against the other teaching contained in the Bible--i.e., the Bible's clear teaching concerning God's absolute predestination--the verse STOPS you in your tracks." The 2 positions hold each other in a tension, if you will.
The only way through that tension is to seek a doctrine that balances the universal nature of the free offer, free will and predestination. I believe this is where the Catholic Church, and many other churches are today.
That said, I can only wish I were as smart as you and Augustine and OP. :-) So I *think* that (one of?) our doctrinal quarrels are really about conditional versus unconditional reprobation.
Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way. But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. 1
I am a "double predestinarian" and I believe in preaching the gospel to every corner of the earth..look on the threads with the cults you will find the Calvinisits unwilling to compromise for the sake of "fellowship" . it is the Calvinists that are trying to correct the error and give the gospel. You will see the "Arminian" types more anxious to be friends and try to win them with the power of their personality ..Calvinists have no such delusions..we know from where our salvation comes..and it is not from being "nice"
WHY bother if we believe in predestination? Because it is so ordained by God that it be the method of Salvation..also because we take the word of God very seriously and hate having it compromised..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.