Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
Amen!
Can you imagine the Calvinist carrying out the great commission..preaching the Gospel of Christ?
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ dying for your sins and you will be saved...EXCEPT if you are one who God has already decided He wants to fry in Hell...then forget the whole Gospel message because no repentance....no belief...NOTHING you do in response to the Gospel can ever save you.....because God has decided He wants you to go to Hell...anyway.
I would love to know a Calvinist personally...because it would be so easy to find some short coming in their life to prove they are obviously sinful and evil and hated of God and predestined for hell.
Until then, I will accept that Peter was writing his letter to the people he specifically addressed. That is why Peter, like, addressed a specific group of people, and stuff.
"a specific group of people, and stuff."??? "dogs"??
I have to wonder if your distorted reading of this passage proves you are not elected by God and predestined for Hell?
Obviously if you were fore-ordained for salvation you could not make such an obvious error.
I would pray for you...but since the Bible teaches God has hated you from the foundation of the world and can't wait to fry you in Hell...according to your own Calvinist doctrine that is..I will restrain my compassion.
No arrogance you say?
No pride you say?
It took a thousand and thirty-nine posts, but it's here in red and black and white. Of course he put it in small print, but let me requote for you the word's from OrthodoxPresbyterian in print for all to see:
"I'm never going to run out of answers, Shadow... the Bible is on my side!!"
My dear Calvinist friends, the argument that you are not prideful is OVER!
Carry on with your other discussions, this one is settled.
Yes, gladly; I respectfully apologize for the delay.
OrthodoxPresbyetrian, This is a honest question regarding the Calvinist view of Total Depravity. If man is totally sinful and never wants to know Christ, is he then totally evil, vile, corrupt (insert really bad adjectives here) - then does that put unregenerated man on the level with Satan and his minions?
No.
Let me repeat that: NO.
There is a Calvinist Doctrine termed Utter Depravity. It refers to the Depravity of demons and the demon-possesed, that sort of thing.
It refers to a free moral agent behaving as badly as he can possibly behave. 100% full-bore satanic behavior.
This is distinct from Total Depravity, which states that the ALL the free actions of Man will be IN SOME RESPECT Depraved. Not "always as unholy as they can possibly be", but rather, "always unholy according to God's standard of righteousness".
The Natural Man is capable of acting in both actively malicious and humanely benevolent manners. One who acts in a humanely benevolent manner is NOT Utterly depraved. He is not seeking to be "as bad as he can possibly be", he is just seeking to be "Good" according to his own humanly-constructed, self-righteous conception of "good".
That sort of "good" can be highly benevolent by fallen human standards.
But not by God's standards. God regards even the self-"righteousness" of Man as a form of blasphemous, self-worshipping idolatry -- as "filthy rags".
Gosh, that is one of Man's problems. It is as plain as day that most men are not (yet) Utterly Depraved. But idolatrous man will take this self-righteousness, this humanly-constructed standard of "good", and will dare to offer these fig leaves up to God, saying, "do you not respect my self-constructed idolatry as 'goodness'"?
To which God replies that Man, though he may not be a demon, is still acting like a wicked idolater. Our filthy fig-leaves of human benevolence count for nothing -- He will unilaterally kill and prepare a sacrifice, and of His Own Choice will unilaterally place that covering upon us (Genesis 3:21), or else we are not covered in His sight AT ALL.
If not, why not, and If so, could they be redeemed, even if we "know" they won't? This isn't a set up. I have no snappy retort (or unsnappy retort for that matter), but if we retain none of the image of God, and no ability to choose other than evil, would this then put us on that level?
I don't think you are trying to "bait" me. I respect your honest questions. I believe that I have answered them. But feel free to fire away with any other questions which may occur.
Best,
OP
You guys sure do spend a lot of time talking about depravity. :-)
Thanks for the answer.
My dear Calvinist friends, the argument that you are not prideful is OVER! Carry on with your other discussions, this one is settled.
Not Pride.
Confidence.
There is a difference.
RnMomof7 opposed me for months. And I will defer to her impression of me, good or bad, for judgment. For though I am prideful in many things (this I freely admit), I expect that she will tell you honestly: In this I am not prideful. I am confident.
I know whereof I speak.
The Bible is on my side, because I am on the Bible's side.
Believe you me, Ward -- six months ago, RN would've agreed with you that I am "prideful" in such a statement.
She will no longer agree with you.
Because she knows that I know what I am talking about.
It is not "prideful" to speak as One who Speaks with Authority.
It is an Imitation of Christ.
And I am an Imitator of Christ.
NO SALE! The argument is over. No further explanation is needed.
Everybody here, right or wrong, thinks they are on the side of the Bible. It's been that way for 2000 years.
Sorry, you said it. You proved it.
Pride, arrogance.
Pride, arrogance.
Pride, arrogance.
Move on to your next point.
Nah.
I am one of the people to whom Peter was writing. Me personally.
I am one "that have obtained like precious faith with" Peter (2 Peter 1:1).
I am numbered among the Elect.
And God is not willing that any of His Elect -- including me -- should perish.
Therefore, I won't perish. "For the promises of God are without repentance".
The fact that others have so believed, is besides the point.
Imagine for one second, that my beliefs are correct.
Just for the sake of argument.
If true, is it not then true that the Bible stands with me, and against those who oppose my Biblical theology??
The reason you cannot even imagine that I know whereof I speak, is because you have not even considered the fact that my theology is, in fact, the Biblical theology.
But your refusal even to consider this possibility, violates the principle of Logical Charity.
Tsk, tsk.
Your charge fails.
Logical Charity? What the heck is that?
The reason you cannot even imagine that I know whereof I speak, is because you have not even considered the fact that my theology is, in fact, the Biblical theology.
I came to these threads saying "this is what I believe about Calvinism, please explain to me why I should believe differently."
I defy you to find one single post where a Calvinist has granted that Logical Charity to an Arminian.
Pick a thread. ANY thread. Don't demand from us what you refuse to give.
Arrogance. Pride. Arrogance. Pride.
The charge stands. Your words convict you.
"The principle of logical charity," i.e., striving to interpret and present alternative positions in the strongest possible light.
I.E., your claim of "pride". It only fits, if you assume that my beliefs are false.
Because if my beliefs are true, then the Bible itself has promised me that it shall never fail to supply me with answers:
In order for the charge of "pride" to "stick", you must assume that my position must necessarily be false, and that Scripture has, therefore, not promised to thoroughly supply me with all answers.
But this assumption is arrogance on your part. It violates the principle of Logical Charity.
I came to these threads saying "this is what I believe about Calvinism, please explain to me why I should believe differently." I defy you to find one single post where a Calvinist has granted that Logical Charity to an Arminian. Pick a thread. ANY thread. Don't demand from us what you refuse to give. Arrogance. Pride. Arrogance. Pride. The charge stands. Your words convict you.
Nope.
I am able to assume the Arminian position in the strongest possible light, for I have been an Arminian. I wasn't born and raised Presbyterian, Ward. I know the strongest arminian arguments by heart; they just aren't Biblical, that's all.
But the only way which you can accuse me of "pride", is to assume that Scripture has not promised me an endless supply of answers -- as Scripture does in fact promise to those who uphold the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
This is why I know that Scripture will NEVER fail to supply me with answers. I uphold the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints, and Scripture has thus promised to always supply me with answers.
To deny this, you must assume that my position is false.
But that assumption on your part is arrogance.
So ditch the attempt at "winning a point" against me on this matter. That dog won't hunt.
That is funny, because when I stated that man could do relative good one of the Calvinist brethren stated that everything unregenerate man did was a sin and evil. I hope he caught your post.
Let us remember that we all are sinful and deserve Hell, but it is the free grace of God that saves us!(Rom.6:23)
We must keep in mind that many 'Calvinists' do not give this stuff a second thought (unless constantly preached to them) and live their daily lives as Scripture dictates not a bunch of Commentaries, Creeds or Councils.
'Thanks be to God for His unspeakable gift'!
Hey,thanks for letting me know about that! Actually Isa.45:7 is relating to the 'evil' of divine judgement, not 'evil' in that which is contrary to God goodness. In other words, God will judge and discipline those who reject His will. This 'evil' is not His directive will (as Calvinists would state it), but God permits it since He has given man a choice. (Rom.10:21, Ezk,33:11, for the individual christian Heb.12:6) The companion verse is Amos 3:6,
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city and the Lord hath not done itThus, this type of 'evil' comes from rejecting God, it is judgement.
Now, the Calvinists believe that all evil is from God and is actually Good!
Although, therefore those things which are evil, in so far as they are evil, are not good, yet is good that there should be not only good things but evil things also(emphasis mine)That is Calvin quoting Augustine who he states is 'wholly with me'(On the Eternal Predestination of God,extracts from an answer to Albertus Pighius The Treasury of Evangelical Writings, Ed.Otis Fuller, p.184) It sounds like Augustine never got over his Manichaeism! It is good to have evil
You must be a King James Only guy also, I have not seen it mentioned so many times by one person! Praise God for His precious words!'Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strive...the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely...what then? Not withstanding every way, whether in pretense, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein rejoice, ye and I will rejoice
Keep that King James in your posts brother!
'Better the King James Bible, then a conquering crown' Will Durant on King James's legacy. Amen!
Amen and Amen! Glory to God!
I have done a little research on this. The author I was reading goes into depth about ancient Near East covenant practices and says that Isaiah wrote about the covenant between Jehovah (as suzerain, or Lord) and Israel (as vassal) in terms of those ancient practices in which there were often elaborate covenant blessings (denoted by the Hebrew word for peace) for keeping the terms of the covenant and covenant curses (denoted by the Hebrew word for evil) for breaking the covenant. The author says Isaiah 45:7 need not cause any theological controversy over whether God created moral evil, since it refers to the terms of ancient Near Eastern covenants.
You could also say that "God brings evil upon a city", meaning that God suffers natural disasters, famine, deformity, pestilence, etc., to afflict people in this mortal sphere in consequence of transgression, but of course it is also prudent to remember that these things are not only sent upon the wicked, we are all subject to them as long as we are in this fallen world.
Hey, great minds think alike!
Well, that is exactly what Augustine taught in his concerning the predestination of the Saints' which Calvin uses against Pighius to show that Augustine is with Calvin, not Pighius.
Although, therefore, those things which are evil, in so far as they are evil, are not good, yet it is good(emphasis mine) that there should not only be good things, but evil(emphasis mine) things also. For, unless there were this good (emphasis mine), that evil (emphasis mine) things also existed, those evil things would not be permitted by the Great and Good Omnipotent to exist at all.This is Calvin quoting from Augustine. Paul answers that in Rom.6:1-2a
What we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.And in Isaiah
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter (Isa,5:20)It sounds like Augustine never did not fully shake off his oriental mysticism from his earlier days and Calvin adopted them along with the Predestination concept!
Notice that I did not have to do any research on the subject! That 'Old' 1611 will give you the answer everytime!
The very next verse is one we use a lot:
Amos 3:7
7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
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.