Posted on 02/17/2002 11:35:16 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
No, it was my contention that that it was the Calvinists who wanted to point to the Arminian churches and use Arminian doctrine as the cause of their failure.
When I pointed out that is the work of Satan you said OH well it happened to Arminian 's too. And well it did..we have no dispute that Satan will seek to destroy that which is of God.
Tell that to your Calvinistic brethren, who make Calvinism a test of being a Christian-like Doc for example!
The reason he is Satan is because he has no fear of God. Unfortunately neither does most of the " professing" church. Calvinists do know that .When man sits on the throne,and thinks he is in control he makes God the tooth fairy, just hanging out to pass out the goodies.
Well, I will be posting Armininus views on depravity and you will see that he nor Wesley ever put 'man on the throne'. What they reject (as do I) is making God arbitrary when it is clearly stated in Scripture that God wants man to be saved not condemned. Only the most gut wrenching of Scripture could deny that fact (2Pet.3:16)
That is a heresy that pervades the "easy grace" and "name it claim it churches"...that is not a Calvinist problem!
Easy! well now! isn't that exactly the word that Woody used in his article? Did not he say 'how easy salvation was? Ofcourse, that is what he actually wrote not what he really meant, but then again he wanted to sound spiritual and you can't sound spiritual when you are cosigning most of the world to hell because...God feels like it! (but oh....he saved ME) Isn't GRACE WONDERFUL, that God would let most of the billions of people go to the lake of Fire but at least he saved ME.ME,ME, talk about man being on a throne!
Read Jonah and see what God feels about His creation. Jonah was a good Calvinist, waiting for the people to be destroyed(you get them God, you show them who is Sovereign!) And all the people had to do was REPENT, now how about that!
I have been there FtD..
You may not believe it is a problem in the church (even the one I attend now) but it is.
Read Jonah and see what God feels about His creation. Jonah was a good Calvinist, waiting for the people to be destroyed(you get them God, you show them who is Sovereign!) And all the people had to do was REPENT, now how about that!
Interesting selection of OT events ...I think it proves that God is sovereign and His plan HIS way will be accomplished ..There is none of this thing where God keeps a back up plan if you (in your free will) refuse...God showed Jonah who was Sovereign..no back up plan needed
Spin, spin, spin. That is what the text says. Peter spoke of water baptism, as did Jesus. Snotty condescension is no replacement for the truth.
1 Peter 3:20b-22 In it [the ark] only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[5] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Why clarify that baptism isn't simply the removal of dirt if Peter wasn't refering to water?
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."
Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'
"Be baptized and wash your sins away", not "congratulations, brother Paul, God picked you, your sins were forgiven, now let's baptize you because, well, umm, I am not sure why."
I can take the text at what it says, because I am trying to please the living inspirer of the text, not a dead man.
God does display favoritism--DEFINITELY SO!--but it is a matter of His SOVEREIGNTY, not a matter of "respect of persons."
Hence, the Arminians' standard objection to Calvinism based on Acts 10:34 is completely invalid. (My refutation of the specious argument was exegetical. I was not even aware of the passage you quoted from Deuteronomy.)
It was not across the board, but the "Superiority Dance" was number 457 in the hymnal. Actually, I think the Pastor fought against it but was outnumbered by the elders. We learned over our time there that there was a lot of bad blood with a daughter church and, I'm not sure if I've said this on this thread, there was a major split after we left. We were outsiders and we pushed the envelope, especially in the worship music area. Ultimately, we knew we weren't going to be a cause for change, but just pushed aside. So, we left.
So maybe they were RINOs (Reformed in Name Only) and we really haven't experienced a "good" Reformed church.
Maybe that will help you see why I see things the way I do.
I don't disagree with that. What I have a problem with is that 1) you're a sinner, 2) you're a "regenerate" sinner, (born again) 3) you repent.
2 and 3 are the same step. The verse agrees with me too.
Oh I know that's not exclusively Calvin. I grew up in a denomination where I actually heard a sermon preached saying that "We're the true Church of God because only the Church of God" is mentioned in the Bible.
So you see, when I got to college and found myself immersed in the Wesleyan Holiness tradition - even with all it's puritanical hangups - I felt my "heart strangely warmed," and I found home.
Ummm, perhaps the Baptism that really counts has nothing to do with water. Perhaps the water is symbolic as Peter points out.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."
This isn't even referring to Baptism at all. This is talking about regeneration by the Holy Spirit, which must happen before one believes. You have fallen in the same error about which Jesus chides Nicodemus.
Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'
Considering your other errors, I don't expect you to understand what this is saying.
I would say that they are different steps which are contemporaneous.
How can they be different steps if they are contemporaneous? Because #2 is the cause and #3 is the effect.
Look again at 1 Corinthians 2:14. This difference between #2 and #3 is absolutely critical to Paul's theology. There is no way around this, Ward!
The contemporaneity of steps 2 and 3 is confusing to some folks. It's like a bullet going through a board. Which happened first--the bullet going through the board or the occurrence of the hole?
Most would say that it's not at all confusing. The bullet came first, since it caused the hole. But the Arminian would say that the hole formed first--since the bullet could not have traversed the board without the hole being there!
But the Arminian is being idiotic. The bullet caused the hole. And causes logically precede effects. (Another way to say this is that causes are not mediated by effects.)
***
Notice that I said that the Arminian's analysis of the ballistics scenario is idiotic. Well, the Arminian's analysis of regeneration and conversion is just as idiotic.
The Arminian is correct in saying that the "board" (the lost sinner's soul) resists the "bullet" (the regenerating Spirit). Well, if the bullet's striving is only that of a lead slug which is tossed at the board, the resistance will certainly prevent the full work of the bullet. But it is completely silly to brag about the board wonderfully allowing the bullet to pass through the board when the bullet is fired from a rifle of Omnipotence. That is what happens when God decides to convert His elect.
See 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5.
So, the Arminian has missed the point by emphasizing that if the board had not formed a hole for the bullet's passage, the bullet could not have made it through. He has the cause and effect backwards. And this is one of the reasons why he reverses the order of regeneration and repentance unto life.
See again 1 Corinthians 1:14. There's no way around this, Ward.
The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.Thus this passage reads: Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God...Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI ("It is finished!") is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely "It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time." - Strongs
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Well I know that is how it worked in my case..it was not like a bullet going through wood..it was more like walking through "quick sand"..but then some of us are slower than a speeding bullet:>)
The "has been born" construction is a past tense construction known as a present perfect. (The "past perfect" construction would be "had been born.")
This idea of the present perfect is interesting in that it can also be rendered in the way the NASB gives it--i.e., "is born." This utilizes a present-tense linking verb (a copulative) and a past participle being made to function as a predicate adjective.
Either way we translate the verse, we are considering the time relationships of issues of believing and the new birth. The verse says that as of the present (characterized by present believing), the verb action (being born of God) is complete. It doesn't actually say when the action was performed beyond saying that it is complete as of now. It doesn't say that it occurred a long time ago, and it doesn't say that it occurred recently. It doesn't say that it occurred slowly or quickly. It merely says that as of right now, it is a fait accompli.
Notice in particular that the present perfect construction does not say that the time frame of the completion of the verb is remote from the present. That being the case, I'm still prepared to use the board-and-bullet example. It perfectly fits John's statement. And it shows how regeneration and conversion can be contemporaneous even if regeneration precedes conversion.
(John's statement is merely a declaration of the cause and effect, not an elucidation of the process details. We know that the Spirit took over the sinner's soul if the sinner is a true believer. It's because unregenerate folks will not believe the gospel--which is Paul's point!)
And I would say that statement is double talk. Still your insistence that 1 Corinthians 2:14 proves your point rings hollow.
But the Arminian is being idiotic.
There you go again. You know doc, I've told you about my Wesleyan heritage. I've also stated clearly that I'm no theologian. But, I went to a Wesleyan Holiness college associated with a Wesleyan Holiness seminary. There I sat under the teaching of some of Christianity's foremost Biblical scholars. If I dropped names here, many would recognize them. These are people who have devoted their lives to the cause of Christ and to the study of scriptures. Many of them risked their very lives for the cause of Christ. Dear friends of ours (now deceased) were in prison in China with Eric Liddle (Chariots of Fire). They go way back.
And you have the audacity to call their position "idiotic."
Am I to believe them, whom I have known and revered for twenty-five years?
Or do I believe you, whom I've "known" via pixels on a screen for 48 hours?
I think I know.
I'm sure you're a nice guy, doc. And I'm sure that you believe you are firmly grounded in your beliefs. But if you can't present them without hurling insults at my heritage and my beliefs, then why should I bother listening to you?
There's been a lot of proof-texting going on here, but I've seen little evidence of John 13:35.
See also Pilgrim's Progress for a typical description of what the sinner often experiences in the time frame of conversion.
Maybe I could use a real thick board in my example. (Ha!) But we still have to keep the cause and effect coupled in the way the bullet-and-board example does. (The fact is, a cause with no effect is not clearly a cause. By the same token, an effect without a cause is a contradiction in terms.)
HA! I'm reading it right now. Christian and Hopeful have just met Ignorance. I'm reading in between posts on FR.
Ward, if that's not an excellent example of an idiot who styles himself a philosopher, then God didn't make little green apples.
So, please explain your complaint more carefully. Please don't just fly off the handle at me. Please show me a little Christian charity when I am trying to help you.
Because they had to memorize it for Bible Quiz night when they were kids.
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.