Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
Oh, no worrys then. Calvinism doesn't teach this. Next!
You reply: "I am sure He is reassured by that ..it is very nice of all of you to grant Him that power :>))"
Can we discuss this without sarcastic insults?
Have any of you considered just how un-Christ-like is your disingenuous use of debate techniques?
What is your goal? The bearing witness, advancing the truth, or winning some game of debate even at the expense of sincerity?
(Keep in mind you are talking to folks who are a bit too sophisticated for Clintonesque replies to straightforward questions.)
As to Jesus teaching, let's look at John 12:37-40.
"Although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of the prophet might be fulfilled... 'Lord who has believed our report?
"Therefore they could not believe,
because Isaiah said again,
'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.'..."
Read the passage and explain why these people could not believe.
Who blinded their eyes? When was the decision made to blind them?
You see, sister, just how disengenuous SKempis is. I tell him that we do not believe what he has attributed to Calvinism and this is the reply. God does not punish people for His decisions, He punishes people for their own decisions.
What is Gentle and loving about twisting, in fact denying, my words? No, it is yet another passive-aggressive attempt to place me with those who "fail to give Him what is His".
I said I acknowledge His omnipotence and love Him more for His choosing not to exercise His power over us so that we could come to Him out of Love.
Does your position require bearing false witness - accusing someone of saying something they have not?
Or can you accept my position as something deserving of respect, if not agreement?
Romans 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Do you think reading this that it is God's decision or mans that send him to hell?
In Calvin's day, however, most of the governments of Europe regarded heresy as treason against the state. And treason was a capital crime.
What if you are loving Him for something that is not accurate? Could you love him because He chose you first?
Good question. The children of God (like us) who are yet making mistakes, right? I ask you - who is Peter referring to in the same passage by the usage of "any" and "all" when he says: "...,not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Please clarify this for me if you would...
Thanks,
Az
That is my reply because I see no support of your claim that I have misrepresented Calvinism.
"...God does not punish people for His decisions, He punishes people for their own decisions."
I agree. And if Calvinism actually claims that it is not God's decision, I have misunderstood and I apologise. But will you please tell me how these people decided to elect themselves?
If we must walk through this...
From my understanding, you believe God decides whom to elect. (? RnMom care to answer?)
If so, it is not their decision, but God's, and I have not attributed something wrongly as you claim.
That is pretty simple. Do you still want to say I'm the one who is disingenuous?
No problem. The context of the passage determines who the us are:
2 Peter 3:1,9 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle... The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.In order to understand the passage, you must understand what the promise is. The us is not every single person without exception, but those to whom He has made a promise. He is not willing that any of them perish.
As do I. And they likewise consider attributes given Him by Wesleyans to be an insult.
I have sharp disagreements with the Calvinists here, but I believe they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.
In charity, I will briefly state our position for you: All men have freely chosen to sin and fall short of the glory of God. They are foolish and disobedient and deceivers, who serve only their own selfish lusts. They hate God and want nothing to do with Him. Nevertheless, God for the sake of His name and His glory has Redeemed a number known only to Him from every nation and tribe and tongue and people group. The rest He has left in their sin wallowing hatred for Him.
Mom as a Wesleyan, or at least a former one, you know better than to assert that we believe in a "powerless" God.
To begin with, let us understand that five point Calvanism is not false Gospel. It does, however, contain unbiblical tenents in its doctrine. Those who adhere to the doctrine of la Sola Scriptura - as did the Berean's (see Acts 17:10-12) - can argue at length with fine evangelical Calvanist friends without any change to anybody's views.
Nevertheless, I feel compelled to weigh in on the issue of whether man is totally depraved or can through the wooing of the Holy Spirit make valid moral and spiritual choices; whether God wants only a a select few called the elect to be saved or whether He wants all men to be saved (see 1 Tm 2:4; 2 Pt 3:9); whether Christ died for the sins of the elect only or for the sins of the whole world (see Jn 1:29, 1 Jn 2:2) It would be necessary for some misconceptions to be cleared up in that regard.
Foremost, is that those that reject Calavinsim aren't necessarily Arminian. There are many non-Calvanists that believe in eternal security, but object to Calvanism on some grounds. Next, one must not question God's sovereignty, God is the potter, we are the clay, and the clay can not complain about God's use of it (see Ro 9:17-28). What is at stake is the answer to whether God in his sovereignty has given man the power to make genuine moral and spiritual choices or whether man is totally depraved and cannot choose God or good. It is biblical that we cannot come to God or Christ unless He draws us by His Spirit. But when He does draw us, do we truly respond, or is our response in receiving Christ imposed on us by irresistable grace? Do we really love God from our hearts (love requires choice) or are we deluded to think we love him?
The issue is not whether mankind deserves hell. We all deserve hell and God would be fully justified in sending everyone there eternally (see Ro 2:1-13, 3:19-31). What is at stake is whether God actually wants anybody to go to hell. To the contrary, God "is not willing that any should perish..." and that He prepared "everlasting fire" not for humans but "for the devil and his angels" (see Mt 25:41). In contrast the God of Calvanism wants many to perish. If He did not, He would extend irresistable grace to all and all would go to heaven. Which God is the I am that I am according to scriptures?
Adam and Eve surely were not depraved, much less than totally depraved according to Calvanistic doctrine - it would be absurd to consider that God in his omnipotent majesty would create such beings; it is not depravity that caused Adam and Eve to rebel in sin. If so, then why would God not extend to them Calvanism's irresistable grace so that there wouldn't be the ensuing sin, sickness, suffering, etc. Also, it is curious to me why those Christians who believe in Christ as a result of irresistable grace don't live perfect lives. Is it that some giants of the faith - such as Paul - are that way because it was God's will, but its His will that others are failures and therefor God doesn't dispensed sufficient enough grace? If so, then what is the purpose of the Great White Throne of Judgement? What are the rewards God gives to believers if He is the one who causes some to live more fruitful lives while withholding that grace from others who are then destined to live less fruitfall lives (see Mt 16:27, 1 Co 3:10-15)? Is there no responsibility on man's part? Are we mere automatons? Did God fate Adam and Eve's decendents to be robots?
OF COURSE God is sovereign, always has been and always will be. However, His sovereignty did not prevent Satan's rebellion in heaven nor Adam and Eve's in the Garden. Choices are the foundation of all creatures possessing free-will, and choices were made that went against God's will. It would be ludicrous for any to purport that God's will is for his creation to be filled with corruption, abortion, murder, lust, wars, etc. Such abominations are allowed to be in accordace to His will, but their existance is not as a result of His perfect will. It would appear then, that Calvanism overstates God's sovereignty by pointing to God as the source of all evil. It is their contention that depraved man can do nothing but sin unless God keeps him from it, which He could (if He would) for all mankind with irresistable grace
Certainly the God of all creation, maker of heaven and earth, ruler of all kingdoms and domains - both seen and unseen, can do what he wants. However, should an innocent reader of the scriptures take them at face value, giving their words ordinary meaning, and not be led to believe that God genuinely wanted to save the whole world and that Christ came to die a propitiatory death for the sins of the whole world and to offer salvation of all? There are multiple verses that contain phrases such as: "which taketh away the sin of the world...For God so loved the world...that the world through him might be saved...I came not to judge the world, but to save the world...to be the savior of the world...", etc. that would lead such a reader to think so (see Jn 1:29, 3:16-17, 4:42, 12:47; 1 Jn 4:14) Moreover, verses with phrases such as "whosover heareth these sayings of mine...whosover will come to me...that whosoever committeth sin...whosoever believeth on me...whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord...whosoever believeth on him...whosoever will, let him take the water of life...," etc. (see Mt 7:24; Lk 6:47; Jn 3:15-16, 8:34, 12:46; Act 2:21; Rom 10:11; Rv 22:17), should surely lead a reader to believe that whosoever means anybody without limitation, and not a special class of people called the elect. Furthermore, should our innocent reader take entirely on face value (without horrendous contortions of interpretation) statements such as: "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden...who will have all men to be saved...who gave himself a ransom for all...the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance...," etc. (see Mt 11:28; 1 Tm 2:4-6; 2 Pt 3:9) come to the conclusion that "all" means all and that "any" means any, and that the inescapable fact of the matter is that God lovingly and freely offers salvation to everyone.
Calvanists on the other hand, arrive at an esoteric understanding. They conclude that these same verses making references to "all", "any", "world", "whoseover", etc. almost always mean their face value, except when they mean the elect. When is that? Whenever the Calvanist requires it.
It would seem then, to our innocent reader that such interpretation is imposed on, rather than derived from scriptures. Our innocent reader should begin to object at the violence being done by the Calvanists to the ordinary meaning of words. In utter amazement at their position, the reader points to God's repeated pleading with men, "choose ye this day whom ye will serve," what is this choice, if but for the dispensation of irresistable grace causing them to choose the Lord. Over and over, time and time again, the Lord begs His people of Israel through the prophets to repent and turn away from their sin so He won't judge them. He weeps over Israel, defers His judgement, sends more prophets to warn and finally - with reluctance - He pours out His wrath; God is righteous and just, He must do so. But the Calvanist would have our reader believe that this whole time he's pleading with people who are depraved, unable to repent unless He forces his irresistable grace upon them. Yet He witholds it, all the while condemning them for doing the only thing they can do - as He made them - which He alone could prevent, but doesn't.
Jesus weeps over Jerusalem: "How often would I have gathered you together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but ye would not." The Calvanist would have our reader believe that would I and ye would not means "I would not" and "ye could not"! A thinking person would shudder at such unnatural imposition on understanding to support dogma.
Let me draw an analogy. Suppose you were in a well that was 50' deep. And I yelled down to you I was going to save you, and threw down a 30' foot long rope. Then I commenced to beg, plead, cajole, implore you to grap a hold of it so I could earnestly pull out of what I tell you will be certain death. Would you not think that I was mocking you? Moreover, if I began to berate you for you failure to fullfill your end of the deal, would you not wish you could grab me by the throat? How could I maintain to any reasonable person that I really wanted to bring them out of the well but it is they are the one not willing? It should appear to our innocent reader of scripture that Calvanist doctrine is really a libel on the character of God.
The Calvanist doctrine presents a God who does not love everyone enough for all to go to heaven, a God who sent his only begotten Son to die only for special individuals. Yet no basis can be given for such a God (who is impartial), who would play such games of favoritism (nor is there anything inherently special in any person that would compell God to elect anybody).
There is at least one verse where the Calvanist's depraved reinterpretation of scripture could absolutely not hold: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (see 1 Jn 2:2). It should appear that this verse alone, would shatter Calvanist doctrine; the use of words are mutually inclusive (both the elect and everybody else).
Anybody who is in hell for eternity is not there because God could have but did not save them by irresistable grace, but because they rejected to grab the 100' rope in their 50' well. God provides and freely offers salvation to all. Your brother in Christ, amen.
New in town? Trust me, they've been slinging the same insults for months, perhaps years.
Theirs is a superior knowledge, a superior race. They'll be sure to let you know that.
He allowed Adam to sin..He selected Noah to survive the flood,the tower to fall, He selected Abraham to be the father of many nations..He selected Issac over Ishmael, Jacob over Essau, He selected Judah to receive Israel's spiritual blessing and Joseph the material (out of the normal order ). He hardened Pharaohs heart, and oversaw the slaughter of the infant males in Egypt..the drowning of the army of Egypt. He selected Israel to be a special people, and David to be the King..He decided to make Bethlehem the birthplace of the Savior and Mary the mother. He chose the cross for redemption..
Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Every knee will bow SK..that indicates a Sovereign God to me??
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.