Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Reformers and Church Fathers on Nature, Grace, and Choice
Vanity, vanity, everything is vanity | December 29, 2001 | Andrew Reeves (me)

Posted on 12/29/2001 1:02:06 PM PST by AndrewSshi

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 381-394 next last
To: CubicleGuy
If the only difference between the two is that God has chosen one to throw himself at the foot of the cross and not the other, then there is no merit in doing so, because God makes the choice and not the man. If this were not so, then the man who chooses to not do so would be blameless, because it's not his choice.

Do you think anything we do has any merit to a Holy God? What merit was there to you in your natural birth? We all deserve hell..merit is not an issue!

Psalm 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

There is no merit in our sin, He came while we were yet sinners,servents of sin.

The question still stands . How is it that one sinner is suddenly able to hear and respond to the gospel, and the other remains blind and deaf. Both hear the same message but only one responds to the grace of God. Why does one choose yes and the other joke about hell?

241 posted on 01/15/2002 1:06:02 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: CubicleGuy; RnMomof7
If the only difference between the two is that God has chosen one to throw himself at the foot of the cross and not the other, then there is no merit in doing so, because God makes the choice and not the man. If this were not so, then the man who chooses to not do so would be blameless, because it's not his choice.

Man has made his choice and declared "I hate God":

Romans 3 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God. They have all gone from the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." "Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit." "The poison of asps is under their lips," "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Isaiah 64 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth upon Thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of Thee; for Thou hast hid Thy face from us, and hast consumed us because of our iniquities.

There will be not one person in hell who does not hate God. For His own Glory, God has given grace to some of us who don't deserve it and we will all cry out for His mercy. You assume by your response that Salvation is for the benefit of man. It is not; Salvation is for the display of God's glory.
What if God, choosing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; and this, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, whom He had prepared before unto glory, even us whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Mormonism attempts to rob God of His glory by exhalting man to the status of God. God is infinitely jealous of His glory. You stand on the edge of eternity with the wrong goal and you will most certainly see a display of God's zeal for His own Glory as will all of us.

I cried to Thee, O LORD; and unto the LORD I made supplication:

"What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise Thee? Shall it declare Thy truth?

Hear, O LORD, and have mercy upon me; LORD, be Thou my helper!"

Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing; Thou hast put off my sackcloth and girded me with gladness, to the end that my glory may sing praise to Thee and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give thanks unto Thee for ever.


242 posted on 01/15/2002 3:01:37 PM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
How can somebody who claims to be well read get so many things 180 degrees backwards? It's like you got up and took 2 hate Calvinism pills and never even considered they might have a few things right like for example where we know that decisions do not create character. Re your last post to me: Is any sin Good; is any work without God good?

No, I only take one 'hate Calvinism' pill a day (thats all I need). What Calvin got 'right' is far outweighed by what he got wrong i.e. Predestination.

What do you mean 'decisions do not create character-ofcourse they do! The decision to believe in Christ or not, the decision to walk in the Spirit or not etc etc.

No sin is 'good' but a work can be 'good' without God, but not to God. In other words, the 'good' e.g. the good Samaritan (an unbeliever) was an example of love toward ones neighbor. His kindness will not earn him anything from God, but it nevertheless is still 'good'

Even so, come Lord Jesus

243 posted on 01/15/2002 9:50:30 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Actually this parable fits Calvinism to a 'T'. We always proclaim, just as this parable does, that we are chosen by the king. More specifically, by the Father

I was not discussing the parable per se, but the words do not fit Calvinism at all. A Calvinist maintains all who are called must be saved. How could a Sovereign God 'call' and it not be successful?

Now regarding the passage itself (ofcourse only using the King James) the statement is found in two places Matt.20:16 which is clearly a verse about rewards. The second one is found in Matt.22:14. That verse is dealing with the Jewish nation. Note how the chapter begins. Also, the wedding feast, where the 'Jew' shows up without his wedding garment (Righteousness), why, because he sought it by works, not by faith (Rom.9:31-32) The companion passage is found in Isa 65:2 cf Rom.10:21.

An Arminian would read the passage all are called, but few choose

Even so, come Lord Jesus

244 posted on 01/15/2002 10:10:39 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
We all deserve hell..merit is not an issue!

Merit certainly is an issue. In the book of Matthew, Jesus speaks on several occasions about the rewards that shall be given unto men by God, and it is clear from the context that he is talking about eternal life.

Does God "reward" His children for acts over which they supposedly have no control or choice in the matter? As the dictionary puts it:

"Rewards and punishments presuppose moral agency, and something voluntarily done, well or ill; without which respect, though we may receive good, it is only a benefit and not a reward."

And, for what it's worth, Paul uses the word "reward" in the same manner in several places.

Or do the scriptures say "reward" and just not mean it?

If your question still stands, my answer still stands.

245 posted on 01/15/2002 10:14:30 PM PST by CubicleGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Mormonism attempts to rob God of His glory by exhalting man to the status of God.

Can a man rob God? I think not. Can a man underestimate God? I think it happens every day.

Mainstream Christianity underestimates God, and attempts to dictate to God as to how He may, or may not, reward the faithful.

Is anything too hard for the Lord?

If you want to rule out certain things as being outside the realm of the possible, you just go on ahead and do so. I, however will stick with the following, from Isaiah 64, verse 4:

For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

If you think that rules anything out, then I suggest you read it again and ponder it some more.

246 posted on 01/15/2002 10:25:47 PM PST by CubicleGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
What is the difference beside the words being used? We agree that without an intervention of God the scripture can not be understood. We both believe that it is from hearing the word that faith comes.So without the "illumination " the word can not be heard or understood. Why do some receive the illumination and others not? What is the difference? Those that are dead in sin can not receive the things of God.That light is life ,it is the grace of God saying "come out"

The can receive the things of God if God (The same God that the Calvinist is always screaming is Omnipotent,) wants it to be so. The issue does make the choice for the individual, or does He make the choice understandable I find it amazing that Calvinists limit the Omnipotence of God by stating He cannot make the Gospel understandable to someone who is spiritually dead! The real issue is that the Calvinist system demands that man be passive while Love demands a active response. Being a woman, I am sure you understand that important difference. God (intiates-grace) man responds (faith-receive the free gift)-very simple.

At the moment of your conversion did you hesitate and say "wait a minute here ,let me think about this"? Or was the presence of God enough to make you desire Him above all else

Since each conversion is different one can not make an issue of it. Some do struggle-Wesley comes to mind.Augustine (if he was saved) seemed to had some problems. Luther also. Some see it very clearly and it is immediate. I was saved as a child so I do not remember the experience, but I always knew Jesus Christ was the eternal Son of God, the Saviour of the World. I believe children, not having alot of mental baggage find that reality easier to accept.

Finally, why some receive the illumnation and some do not? All receive some Illumination. (Psa 19:1-3, Rom 1:19). At that point of general Illumination an individual is either positive (desiring more) or negative (rejecting God-Rom.1:21). God will provide more Illumination to those who will believe. The Gospel goes out and will fall on hard ground and soft. The 'soft' ground will respond freely.The 'hard' ground react and reject. There are areas of the world where the negative volition is so great that those areas have been closed to the Gospel. One Missionary spent I believe 40 years in Mongola and had one convert! Depravity does not mean a dead will. It means a weakened, corrupted will but one that can still cry out save me

That they should seek the Lord,if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us(Acts 17:27)

Even so, come Lord Jesus

247 posted on 01/15/2002 10:48:58 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
As a followup: You are really nothing more than a Pelagian who wants to lash out at those of us who happen to be right BTW. The problem with the church today is not that there are Calvinist disciples of Augustine in it but that the disciples of Pelagus are thriving. You don't like what we have to say precisely because we are correct. You want to accuse us of changing the meaning of words like "all" when you are the ones guilty of the crime. Dead does not mean dead and

If 'dead' means 'dead' how these 'dead' people still manage to talk, walk, eat, make decisions etc. Man is still a person which has intellectSensiblity and will. Now the Fall made man unable to reach God but God can still reach man and give him a choice

"no not one" is really just God using hypoberlie. Why do you rage so against your Creator?

I do not rage against my Creator, why do you blaspheme Him with your attacks on His essence with your vile, God-dishonoring TULIP

You need to learn what the Bible really teaches; that unless a man is born of God he cannot see the Kingdom of God. Man is born dead; he needs to be reborn. Man responds to the Holy Spirit alright:

Granted, he needs to be 'born again' but that is a decision he must make, to receive the free gift of eternal life (Jn.1:12).

Also, you guys never deal with 'all' and 'whosoever'

You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

Woody! Don't you know that no Calvinist believes you can resist God! Thats (gasp!)Free Will

Even so, come Lord Jesus!

Hey, look at that something I can Amen you for!

248 posted on 01/15/2002 11:04:00 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
How can one follow Scripture when one edits it and discards it to suit one's own doctrine, as did Luther?

That coming from a Catholic? Are you kidding?

Luthers alone was a 'dynamic translation which conveyed the sense of the passage. Luthers Bible is head and shoulders over any Bible put out by Rome

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

249 posted on 01/15/2002 11:09:27 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: the_doc
Re-read my post. I am presenting Luther's perspective of what saith the Scriptures?" So, Luther is on my side, not Hank's.

The issue you were attacking Hank on was not listening to teachers (as you do) and thus being close minded. Luthers view was Sola Scriptura. Hank contention with you was that you were always appealing to scholars. That was the issue I addressed.

And in the matter which Luther considered the pivotal controversy of the Reformation, Luther stands with me against you. And Luther makes his case from the Scriptures. You just ignore Luther's Scriptural arguments.

I never claimed otherwise in regards to Predestination. All the Reformers were wrong on that one.

By the same token, you twist things in the larger discussion to fit your unscriptural presuppositions. For example, you abused RnMomof7's words to Romulus concerning the idea of how a man falls in love with his wife-to-be. You said God did not make a man fall in love. You are misrepresenting RnMomof7's point in this. This is obvious when you go back to her statement to Romulus.

I abused it how? The statement was made on falling in love with your wife and who would reject that. The issue in love is both making a choice. So if love is going to be a subject, choice always comes in. Thats why you Calvinist avoid that word like the plague. You use 'grace' and take the love out of it by adding 'Sovereign' tying it to power and not compassion.

We Calvinists--and RnMomof7 is now one of us (having finally figured out, by the grace of God, what we have been saying on these threads all along!)--maintain that God causes the man to fall in love with his wife-to-be.

Well, that is an interesting notion. God makes us fall in love. So if we stop loving someone, is God responsible for that also?

The idea of compulsion is not the issue so much as is the idea of causality. The reason why RnMomof7 and I both say that is because the mechanism of the effect of the cause does involve choice. It does involve what can properly be called "free will."

That is nonsense! The 'cause' must either go back totally to God, in which it is compulsion since man does not have a choice, or to man, in which he has to make decision he is responsible for. Your sophistry is just another word for Philosophical Determinism.

We have said this over and over and over. You are continuing to construct straw men for your own purposes. You need to chill out, just as RnMomof7 eventually did.

I cannot 'chill out' I have the 'free will'but just cannot seem to effect the cause.

Even so, come Lord Jesus

P.S. Doc, you sound positively goulish-Rnmomof7 is one of us now,ha, ha, ha!

250 posted on 01/15/2002 11:28:14 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: the_doc
All Calvinists confess that the presentation of the gospel is a call to repentance and faith. The Lord was keying on the fact that not everyone has the same response to the call. What are the implications of this? Well, election aside,

Election aside-oh no, Election is exactly the point. The Calvinist maintain (espically those who support limited atonement) that every one God calls will be chosen. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called'(Rom.8:30)

we can say that something is inarguably wrong with the free will of the non-responders.

I love how you guys twist language. Something is wrong with the 'free will' of the responders when they were not chosen and did not have the ability to choose for God!

And that is the inarguable point which the Calvinist makes

Sad to say, that is the very God dishonoring point of Calvinism. God chooses who He will and then condemns men who cannot make any other choice. Well, they deserve to go to hell, they are sinners, is the Calvinist retort. Well, the fact is we all deserve to go to hell and only the twisting and dodging word games that a Calvinist plays hides the fact that the god of TULIP is not the God of the Bible

Even so, come Lord Jesus

251 posted on 01/15/2002 11:43:00 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
You know, the truth of irresistible grace is what made me really look doc.....I have known for 25 years that no other "choice" was ever possible.You can not be in His presence and turn back.....it is impossible

Adam did. Satan did. I know they were predestinated to do so! But, God is not the author of sin-yea right!

There is nothing 'irresistable' about grace.

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as your father did, so do ye'(Acts.7:51)

Man can and does resist grace (Rom.1:21-22) and how you feel about it (Oh, 'how could anyone resist God'-please, you do it everytime you sin, as do I), means nothing.

Even so, come Lord Jesus

By the way, if God uses 'irresistable' grace on us, why do we still sin? Lets here the cause and effect/free will song and dance again-always good for a laugh!

252 posted on 01/16/2002 12:06:53 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Gosh, CG, this statement shows us just how very little you understand about us Calvinist. Man is required to reach up and grasp the salvation that is offered

Man is required to do something is he? You guys are always trying to have it both ways. Now, does God have to regenerate first? Why are you talking about 'grasping' salvation when everything, faith, repentance come after God 'turns on the switch'.

Now, come back and deny that regeneration doesn't preceed faith/repentance.

Even so, come Lord Jesus

253 posted on 01/16/2002 12:14:16 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Why do some "reach up "and not others? What is the difference? Only a blind man would not reach for what will save him

And Jesus said,For judgement I am come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind,ye should have no sin, but now ye say, We see therefore your sin remaineth(Jn.9:39-41)

Those who could see wouldn't, the one who was blind would. Neither was 'Predestinated' in their choice, since the unbelivers chose to remain in darkness. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into th eworld, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

That is why men choose to stay in darkness, they like it!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

254 posted on 01/16/2002 12:28:48 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
The question still stands . How is it that one sinner is suddenly able to hear and respond to the gospel, and the other remains blind and deaf. Both hear the same message but only one responds to the grace of God. Why does one choose yes and the other joke about hell

It is a decision to believe or not to believe. Why do some people choose a life of crime?

Even so, come Lord Jesus

255 posted on 01/16/2002 2:10:06 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Someone has called you a Pelagian. I would hasten to say that I do not consider you a Pelagian. It is a pretty deadly insult. But you are no doubt aware that there is a great deal of careless accusation on these threads.
256 posted on 01/16/2002 4:11:23 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
An Arminian would read the passage "all are called, but few choose"

Touche. Of course, Calvinists don't have to re-write the plain wording used by the KJV translators in order to make the passage say what we want, do we?

I'll just stick with the KJV scholars on this one.
257 posted on 01/16/2002 4:24:17 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Sorry....I don't think you can undo the Reformation theology that is supported by weighty Biblical witness with just two proof texts from the same letter. To summarily pronounce "bunk" you must have more evidence than that.
258 posted on 01/16/2002 4:24:30 AM PST by ncpastor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Vulgate is a corrupt text. Go to the original Greek (as Luther did) for your most faithful translation. Vulgate contains errors that have gotten passed along. This may be one of them.
259 posted on 01/16/2002 4:27:02 AM PST by ncpastor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; RnMomof7
you to RnMom: The real issue is that the Calvinist system demands that man be passive while Love demands a active response.

Not at all. Calvinists recognize the scriptural truth that man is spiritually dead. Natural man is a spiritual corpse, spiritually stillborn. Therefore, he can receive nothing unless God gives it to him first. Corpses don't cooperate. You understand, forthe, that in this sense, a Calvinist or, more simply, those who acknowledge the utter sovereignty of God in the matter of salvation see in the newly regenerate creature a spiritual creation as fresh as Adam himself was, truly a new creation given life by God's own hand? This is not a casual idea.

you to RnMom: Being a woman, I am sure you understand that important difference. God (intiates-grace) man responds (faith-receive the free gift)-very simple.

I'm a single man so I don't grasp it at all. RnMom, you're going to have to explain this as a woman so backward creatures like me can grasp it.
260 posted on 01/16/2002 4:38:18 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 381-394 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson