To Calvinism

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Hey, I ran across this site and wanted to know if you wanted a go at this clown!! :thumb:

http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/rlister/calvin.htm

[joelkaki]

I'll comment on his first claims on the page there, and if I have time, I'll tackle at least one of the papers. One thing to be noted:
One of his links is about hyper-Calvinism, which is not the same as Calvinism, which I denounce.

Joel

[Jaltus]

No point in responding to them, they are KJVOs, meaning they will not listen to anything you say anyway.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

So how do we answer KJV onlyers? I found this site here:
http://www.avpublications.com/

They seem kind of loopy to me. :help:

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 08:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45511#post45511)
joelkaki:

I'll comment on his first claims on the page there, and if I have time, I'll tackle at least one of the papers. One thing to be noted:
One of his links is about hyper-Calvinism, which is not the same as Calvinism, which I denounce.

Joel


If you look at the article on Hyper Calvinism, you'll see they mean Calvinism, since they designate HC by the TULIP acronym.

And any site that approvingly quotes Dave Hunt isn't worth my time investigating.

[joelkaki]

Here are some comments on the home page statement:

Although it may seem harsh applying a passage of Scripture such as 2 Peter 2:1-3 against Christian brothers, this is in fact what this passage refers to. Christians who rise up within the Church who bring with them ****able heresies. Calvinism is a heresy which is based upon twisting a small number of Scripture verses to make them fit a doctrinal belief.

Calvinism based on a small number of Scriptures? Is this guy crazy? There are tons of passages that are loaded with the different aspects of sovereign grace. It is throughout the entire bible. Actually, it seems to me like it is more the other way around. Arminians use the relatively few universal passages to try and defeat Calvinism. (Obviously they use more than just the universal passages). The universal passages are miniscule in comparison to those that teach the opposite.


Calvinism denies the all sufficiency of the atoning death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and makes vain His command to go out into all the world preaching the gospel and compelling the lost sinner to come in to the Saviour.

No, it doesn't at all. Calvinism in fact, shows the greater sufficiency of Christ's atoning death, for it shows man's true sinful state in its full measure (total depravity) so that Christ's death is absolutely needed. The last statement is the oldest and most unreasonable straw man I think ever presented. Predestination and election is God's determination to save. But that determination in itself does not save. God determined beforehand that these people would hear the gospel, that he would draw them to himself so that they will believe. Actually, I think Calvinism is really a motivation for evangelism. There are people out there whom God has predestined to be saved. If I didn't know that there were some people who are going to go to heaven that hear the gospel message, if I didn't know that for sure, it might really give me less motivation. But knowing that God's elect are out there, needing to hear the gospel, makes me want to go out and give it to them.


Calvinism is a religion

Calvinism is not a religion. That's a pretty pitiful straw man. Calvinism is a set of beliefs within the Christian religion (faith).


based upon 5 points often referred to as "TULIP" which perverts Scripture and preaches heresies which destroy soul-winning effort and turn otherwise good Christians into pew warmers.

More straw men actually. A Calvinistic, presbyterian preacher came to preach at our church a couple weeks back, and while proclaiming sovereign grace, he gave a stirring motivation and exhortation to evangelism.
The amount of Scripture supporting TULIP is staggering.


It is a system based upon teachings of men, one will rarely become a calvinist through reading the Bible,

That is about the worst straw men of all time. First of all, it ain't based on man's teaching first and foremost. It is based on Scripture. Certainly men have taught it, and we accept what they taught, but since what they taught was based on Scripture, there isn't a problem.
The stories of people who become Calvinists through reading the Bible are overwhelming. A man who is now a pastor, went to an Arminian college which taught two things very strongly. The inerrancy of Scripture, and the rule that Scripture interprets Scripture. He was an Arminian at the time. By the end of college, he was a Calvinist. By reading the Scriptures, he became a Calvinist. Oh, and he was also very active in evangelism. And I could recount many other stories, and many besides me could recount many other stories, so that is the worst straw man I have ever heard.


and for some strange reason otherwise good Fundamental Baptist Churches seem particularily susceptible to the heresy of this man made religion.

Well, I am not Baptist, so I won't say anything about that. But I will say this:

I would much rather exalt God's sovereignty than man's free will.

Joel

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

thanks joel. While I may disagree with you on the irresistable grace, I also celebrate your right to believe it and do not label it heresy. It's like looking at a coin. You see heads, I see tails, but it's the same coin. We focus more on man's free will (God's gift to us)and you focus on God's sovereignty (His grace to us). It's which way we lean that differs us in denomination. Thank you my brother in Christ.

[amishrockstar]

thanks joel. While I may disagree with you on the irresistable grace, I also celebrate your right to believe it and do not label it heresy. It's like looking at a coin. You see heads, I see tails, but it's the same coin. We focus more on man's free will (God's gift to us)and you focus on God's sovereignty (His grace to us). It's which way we lean that differs us in denomination. Thank you my brother in Christ.

BTC, to say that "irresistable grace" is like "looking at a coin," is very misleading. It's like the Postmodernist that says "you have your truth, and I have my truth." I would argue that "truth" isn't "relative." The doctrine of irresistable grace is either true, or it's not.

When you talk about "man's free will," are you trying to say that someone who is spiritually "dead" is able to choose Christ on his own (Eph. 2:1-6; Col.2:13)?? That's like going to the local graveyard, and telling the corpses there that you'll give them a hand out of the hole if they would only chose to except the invitation.

What about the spiritually "blind," "deaf," and "dumb??" If we all- by nature- are these things, then would you say apart from God's grace- by man's freewill, he can "see," "hear," and "understand" Christ??

Last question (in 2 parts)...

Is faith in Christ something that's "pleasing" to God?? I think you'd agree that it is.
Why then does Rom. 8:7,8 declare: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Again, "Those who are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

I would argue that the Bible nowhere teaches that man has a "will" that is "free," or that man is able to resist his maker (Rom.9:19). I'm interested in how you interpret these passages. :eek:

-Matthew

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

:digup:

[Ormly]

Here are some comments on the home page statement:

Although it may seem harsh applying a passage of Scripture such as 2 Peter 2:1-3 against Christian brothers, this is in fact what this passage refers to. Christians who rise up within the Church who bring with them ****able heresies. Calvinism is a heresy which is based upon twisting a small number of Scripture verses to make them fit a doctrinal belief.

Calvinism based on a small number of Scriptures? Is this guy crazy? There are tons of passages that are loaded with the different aspects of sovereign grace. It is throughout the entire bible. Actually, it seems to me like it is more the other way around. Arminians use the relatively few universal passages to try and defeat Calvinism. (Obviously they use more than just the universal passages). The universal passages are miniscule in comparison to those that teach the opposite.


Calvinism denies the all sufficiency of the atoning death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and makes vain His command to go out into all the world preaching the gospel and compelling the lost sinner to come in to the Saviour.

No, it doesn't at all. Calvinism in fact, shows the greater sufficiency of Christ's atoning death, for it shows man's true sinful state in its full measure (total depravity) so that Christ's death is absolutely needed. The last statement is the oldest and most unreasonable straw man I think ever presented. Predestination and election is God's determination to save. But that determination in itself does not save. God determined beforehand that these people would hear the gospel, that he would draw them to himself so that they will believe. Actually, I think Calvinism is really a motivation for evangelism. There are people out there whom God has predestined to be saved. If I didn't know that there were some people who are going to go to heaven that hear the gospel message, if I didn't know that for sure, it might really give me less motivation. But knowing that God's elect are out there, needing to hear the gospel, makes me want to go out and give it to them.


Calvinism is a religion

Calvinism is not a religion. That's a pretty pitiful straw man. Calvinism is a set of beliefs within the Christian religion (faith).


based upon 5 points often referred to as "TULIP" which perverts Scripture and preaches heresies which destroy soul-winning effort and turn otherwise good Christians into pew warmers.

More straw men actually. A Calvinistic, presbyterian preacher came to preach at our church a couple weeks back, and while proclaiming sovereign grace, he gave a stirring motivation and exhortation to evangelism.
The amount of Scripture supporting TULIP is staggering.


It is a system based upon teachings of men, one will rarely become a calvinist through reading the Bible,

That is about the worst straw men of all time. First of all, it ain't based on man's teaching first and foremost. It is based on Scripture. Certainly men have taught it, and we accept what they taught, but since what they taught was based on Scripture, there isn't a problem.
The stories of people who become Calvinists through reading the Bible are overwhelming. A man who is now a pastor, went to an Arminian college which taught two things very strongly. The inerrancy of Scripture, and the rule that Scripture interprets Scripture. He was an Arminian at the time. By the end of college, he was a Calvinist. By reading the Scriptures, he became a Calvinist. Oh, and he was also very active in evangelism. And I could recount many other stories, and many besides me could recount many other stories, so that is the worst straw man I have ever heard.


and for some strange reason otherwise good Fundamental Baptist Churches seem particularily susceptible to the heresy of this man made religion.

Well, I am not Baptist, so I won't say anything about that. But I will say this:

I would much rather exalt God's sovereignty than man's free will.

Joel

Yeah, but he's correct. Can you exlain, from scripture, what is the gospel of Jesus Christ? Bet you can't, based on Calvinism; Ill bet you get sidetrack on other issues.

[Xmansmommy]

Is faith in Christ something that's "pleasing" to God?? I think you'd agree that it is.

Hello Matthew. I realize these questions were asked of BTC but I hope you don't mind me adding my thoughts. Of course faith is pleasing to God. We even know that without it we cannot please God (Hebrews 11:6).

Why then does Rom. 8:7,8 declare: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Again, "Those who are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

Are you suggesting that nothing we can do in our fleshly bodies pleases God? If so, then how can we acknowledge that having faith in this life if pleasing to Him?

I would argue that the Bible nowhere teaches that man has a "will" that is "free," or that man is able to resist his maker (Rom.9:19). I'm interested in how you interpret these passages. :eek:

-Matthew

Personally, I think Romans 9:19 is saying nobody has the right to be upset that God has the right to do what He wills ie. show mercy or harden who He will. Not that nobody can actually resist His will. Because we know that in the example given of Pharaoh, Pharaoh was said to have hardened his own heart. So God can take an already hard heart, increase the hardening to bring about the revelation of His power, wrath, glory and mercy. And who are we to question Him or say that He can't?

[Mark_S]

Hey, I ran across this site and wanted to know if you wanted a go at this clown!! :thumb:

http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/rlister/calvin.htm

I like his review of Spurgeon

"While hunting though a pile of old books at a bookshop I was fortunate to find an old tattered magazine style booklet on C.H.Spurgeon, the prince of preachers. This booklet is a true gem as it is written by a man that knew Spurgeon personally and appears to have been written about the time of his death. I have scanned and checked the work but there are bound to be error, please contact me if you find any so that I can correct them.

It is broken up into a chapter on each page as it is long.

Read, enjoy, and above all, learn from one of the truly great men of God.

THE MAN AND HIS WONDERFUL MESSAGE Life Story of SPURGEON by James T. Allen"

:grin:

[amishrockstar]

Hey Xmansmommy,

Those are some great questions...

You wrote:
"Are you suggesting that nothing we can do in our fleshly bodies pleases God? If so, then how can we acknowledge that having faith in this life (is) pleasing to Him?"

First let me start by defining some terms. When you say "nothing we can do" I would understand the word "we" as referring to Christians exculsively. If that's correct, then I would answer NO to your first question. But, if by "we" you mean every individual on earth, then I would answer YES- the "natural" man or those that are "in the flesh" CANNOT please God- that's the whole point to those verses in Rom.8.

Next, I think it's important to define our terms the way the Bible defines them. When Paul, in Rom. 8 is talking about those "in the flesh" he's making a strict dichotomy between "those in the spirit" (believers) and those in "the flesh" (unbelievers). So I think your questions may be a little bit misleading.

Lastly, a person must FIRST be born again before they can even "see" the kingdom of God (Jn.3:3,5). So regeneration must preceed faith. God changes the stone-heart of a spiritually dead, blind, hostile towards God- sinner, in order for that person to have faith in Christ. Again, a corpse cannot get up on its own, it must be the resurrecting power of the Son of God that proclaims "Lazurus come forth" (Jn.11:43).

In regards to your last comment. Who in the world would raise the objection against Paul ("Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?") if God was simply hardening Pharoah only in response to Pharoah hardening his own heart. The point of the whole text, is that God does whatever He pleases, as in Psalm 115:3 ("Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases") regardless of what little ol' Pharoah does. God said "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Rom.9:17). So God's purpose for Pharoah, even before he was "raised" up, was that God would harden his heart, etc., and THAT is why the object would be raised by those in Paul's day, and Arminians today (if God is completly sovereign- hardening who HE will- then how can He condemn people to hell??) So what's the Apostle Paul's answer?? (that was a rhetorical question by the way :wink: ).

Anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the other passages I mentioned as well.

-Matthew

P.S. Nice signature

[Xavier]

If you look at the article on Hyper Calvinism, you'll see they mean Calvinism, since they designate HC by the TULIP acronym.

Norman Giesler does the same in his book (which I can't remember the name of off-hand).

[Calvinist4Him]

I like his review of Spurgeon

"While hunting though a pile of old books at a bookshop I was fortunate to find an old tattered magazine style booklet on C.H.Spurgeon, the prince of preachers. This booklet is a true gem as it is written by a man that knew Spurgeon personally and appears to have been written about the time of his death. I have scanned and checked the work but there are bound to be error, please contact me if you find any so that I can correct them.

It is broken up into a chapter on each page as it is long.

Read, enjoy, and above all, learn from one of the truly great men of God.

THE MAN AND HIS WONDERFUL MESSAGE Life Story of SPURGEON by James T. Allen"

:grin:

:lol: If he only knew...

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Reformation Schmeforation! :hehe:

[Chappie]

I would argue that the Bible nowhere teaches that man has a "will" that is "free," or that man is able to resist his maker (Rom.9:19). I'm interested in how you interpret these passages. :eek:

-Matthew

Nowhere? :eek:

Deuteronomy 16:10
And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the LORD thy God, according as the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Deuteronomy 16:9-11 (in Context) Deuteronomy 16 (Whole Chapter)

Deuteronomy 23:23
That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.
Deuteronomy 23:22-24 (in Context) Deuteronomy 23 (Whole Chapter)

This offering must be a consequence of a freewill....

[amishrockstar]

Uh, Ya Chappie...

No where...

I never said that the word "freewill" isn't in the Bible!!!

I said, that the Bible "nowhere teaches that man has a "will" that is "free," Their's a HUGE difference between what I wrote, and a "freewill" offering in the scriptures.

First off, reading Deu. 16:10 that sounds like a "command" from God... "THOU SHALT KEEP THE FEAST OF WEEKS UNTO THE LORD THY GOD WITH A TRIBUTE OF A FREEWILL OFFERING..."-Ya, that's a command. It's also according to "as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee." So once again, it's GOD whose in charge, and it's God that gets the glory.

Second, Deu.23:23- "THOU SHALT KEEP AND PERFORM; EVEN A FREEWILL OFFERING..."- hmmmm, that sounds like a command to me.

So, again...

I would argue that the Bible "nowhere teaches that man has a "will" that is "free." Yes, man does make descisions... Yes, he's completely accountable for these "choices" but they are ALWAYS choices that are aligned with man's nature.

So my question to you is: Can a bad tree produce good fruit???

:eek:

-Matthew

[Arminian]

When you talk about "man's free will," are you trying to say that someone who is spiritually "dead" is able to choose Christ on his own (Eph. 2:1-6; Col.2:13)??

That's exactly what those combination of verses teach. Read Col. 2 in its entirety.

Why then does Rom. 8:7,8 declare: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Again, "Those who are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

Your last sentence is a reinterpretation of what the verse actually says. So why is Paul giving Christians this warning? And, does Paul teach that believers before Christ lived according to the Spirit?

[Calvinist4Him]

That's exactly what those combination of verses teach.

The Apostle Paul taught no such thing...which is not surprising considering his conversion on the road to Damascus.

[amishrockstar]

Hey Arminian,

You wrote to me: "Your last sentence is a reinterpretation of what the verse actually says."

Would you please open your bible to Rom.8:8??

I wasn't interpreting anything... that's what the text actually says, word-for-word: "THOSE WHO ARE IN THE FLESH CANNOT PLEASE GOD." -Those are Paul's words- not mine.

What warning are you talking about?!?! Do you mean "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (ESV) I don't see a warning to believers, please give me a specific verse/passage.

Rom. 8, once again, is a demonstration of a strict dichotomy between believers (those in the Spirit) and unbelievers (those in the Flesh). So I need to ask you... Is having faith in Christ something "pleasing" to God (please read my OP again)??

In regards to Col. 2:13 in context. The whole point is that a Christian is "dead" in trespasses and it's GOD who raises that person to life. The spiritually dead cannot raise themselves to life!!! Again, go down to your local cemetary, and scream out as loud as you like, to those in their graves. Tell them that you'll give them a hand out of that hole if they'll only reach out and except your invitation. You'll be waiting a looooong time. And it's the exact same way with the spiritually dead.


-Matthew

[Xavier]

Would you please open your bible to Rom.8:8??

:lmbo:

[Calvinist4Him]

Would you please open your bible to Rom.8:8??

Romans Chapter 8? That's like the last nail in the Arminianism coffin. :hehe:

[Xavier]

Romans Chapter 8? That's like the last nail in the Arminianism coffin. :hehe:
Yeah... You get all the way to verse 29 and then the Calvinist hammer shatters into a million pieces... :tongue:

[Calvinist4Him]

Yeah... You get all the way to verse 29 and then the Calvinist hammer shatters into a million pieces... :tongue:

:lol: But seriously, do you know what is meant by "foreknew"?

[BenK]

Yeah... You get all the way to verse 29 and then the Calvinist hammer shatters into a million pieces...

Wrong. You don't get to verse 29. You'd already broke the hammer in verse 13.

[Xavier]

In regards to Col. 2:13 in context. The whole point is that a Christian is "dead" in trespasses and it's GOD who raises that person to life. The spiritually dead cannot raise themselves to life!!!

Curious. . .

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands,by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The subject remains YOU (the believer) for the whole sentence.

[Xavier]

Wrong. You don't get to verse 29. You'd already broke the hammer in verse 13.
This is true, but I'm giving the Calvinists a little lee-way... :wink:

[Xavier]

:lol: But seriously, do you know what is meant by "foreknew"?

The argument that it means predestine tends to fall flat in my eyes since Paul uses the word meaning predestine not but a single word later, which reduces to a tautology that simply doesn't make any sense in the flow of Paul's argument.

[Calvinist4Him]

The argument that it means predestine tends to fall flat in my eyes since Paul uses the word meaning predestine not but a single word later, which reduces to a tautology that simply doesn't make any sense in the flow of Paul's argument.

It means foreloved...

"To read "whom He did foreknow would repent and believe" is to commit two grievous sins. They are: reading into the passage what is wholly without warrant in the context; contradicting Pauline teaching that we are called "not according to our works but according to His Own purpose and grace" 2 Tim. 1:9." - http://www.founders.org/FJ40/article3.html at the bottom of the article are quotes from 14 scholars on Romans 8:29

Edited to say: the context of... "He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son" should guide the interpretation of "For those whom He foreknew". Interpreting the first part in a vacuum will lead to the interpretation you agree with.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Dang, could y'all have dug up a MORE ancient thread??

[Xavier]

It means foreloved...

Forgiving the fact that there are many fine words for "love" in the greek language, I don't see how you can possibly make this point here. By proposing a definition that is different from every other, you don't make a very strong case.

"To read "whom He did foreknow would repent and believe" is to commit two grievous sins. They are: reading into the passage what is wholly without warrant in the context; contradicting Pauline teaching that we are called "not according to our works but according to His Own purpose and grace" 2 Tim. 1:9." - http://www.founders.org/FJ40/article3.html at the bottom of the article are quotes from 14 scholars on Romans 8:29

Last I checked, most people don't consider faith a work, so point 1 goes down in a flame of "glory" (pun not entirely intended). Alas, that doesn't bode well for the rest of the article.

Further, Paul's point is that we are saved by grace apart from works of the law. See Romans 2ff.

Edited to say: the context of... "He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son" should guide the interpretation of "For those whom He foreknew". Interpreting the first part in a vacuum will lead to the interpretation you agree with.

I tend to agree with that thought, but tend to think that 8:30 should also be a guiding principle since the language is clearly parallel between the start of 8:29 and 8:30. How do you think that the first part of 8:29 is not showing a progression?

[Calvinist4Him]

Forgiving the fact that there are many fine words for "love" in the greek language, I don't see how you can possibly make this point here. By proposing a definition that is different from every other, you don't make a very strong case.

Ok, being consistant with your interpretation of knew, what are we to make of the following verse?

Matthew 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

That God didn't foreknow they would practice lawlessness?

:lmbo:

[Chappie]

:eek: Uh, Ya Chappie...

No where...

I never said that the word "freewill" isn't in the Bible!!!

I said, that the Bible "nowhere teaches that man has a "will" that is "free," There’s a HUGE difference between what I wrote, and a "freewill" offering in the scriptures.

First off, reading Deu. 16:10 that sounds like a "command" from God... "THOU SHALT KEEP THE FEAST OF WEEKS UNTO THE LORD THY GOD WITH A TRIBUTE OF A FREEWILL OFFERING..."-Ya, that's a command. It's also according to "as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee." So once again, it's GOD whose in charge, and it's God that gets the glory.

Second, Deu.23:23- "THOU SHALT KEEP AND PERFORM; EVEN A FREEWILL OFFERING..."- hmmmm, that sounds like a command to me.

Reformers think that they have been designated as God's glory keepers.. Duh...
Deuteronomy 23:23 (King James Version)
23That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.

The command is to keep the vow that one makes to God... Anyway, a command is effective only if men obey it... Have you ever heard of sin? Sin is disobedience pure and simple. Without commands that men disobey, sin does not exist… Sin is a consequence of man’s ability to disobey God.…

Another command... Adam, do not eat from the tree in the center of the garden... Adam had freewill, so what did he do... Chomp, chomp, chomp; huuum, this is good Eve, gimme another bite....

Eve! :yipee: Run!!!!! Run Eve run!!!

Let's get outta here, God is coming... Oh my gosh; Eve! Girl you are naked as a jay bird… Funny I never noticed this before, where are your clothes, better come with me.... Nine months later, Waaaa, waaaa, waaaa. Eve.. I think he's hungry, you feed him Adam... Feed him what Eve.. You feed him, you had him.... Why you always telling me what to do… That’s what got me in trouble with God, listening to you… You feed him….

I would argue that the Bible "nowhere teaches that man has a "will" that is "free." Yes, man does make descisions... Yes, he's completely accountable for these "choices" but they are ALWAYS choices that are aligned with man's nature.

So my question to you is: Can a bad tree produce good fruit???

:eek:

-Matthew

No equivocating allowed.. A freewill offering requires a freewill...

What a great question.. Can a good God produce evil fruit? Which tree would represent God in this good tree, bad tree scenario? The good tree or the bad tree.

I have heard it said by reformers that Hitler and the holocaust was a direct consequence of God determining everything.. :eek: Is this the fruit of a good tree or a bad tree?

Do not ask the good tree bad tree scenario to justify more than it was intended to..

[Xavier]

Oh wow... Let's play a little game of "Who's more consistant?"

Here are some of the rest of the uses of the word ginōskō and its derivatives in Matthew alone:

But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,

And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, "See that no one knows about it."

"So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.

And if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless.

and ordered them not to make him known.

"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.

And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near.

So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.

But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into.

Here's my favorite:
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Yep, God was Fore-Sexing us... :ahem:

I'm sorry... You were explaining that your definition of ginōskō isn't self-serving? :rofl:

[Arminian]

What warning are you talking about?!?! Do you mean "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (ESV) I don't see a warning to believers, please give me a specific verse/passage.

This whole section is about "us who live (not an aorist) according to the Spirit" (8:4) and is contrasted with those who don't. The point being that the believer can live either way, each with its own outcome. After describing the two ways of life, Paul says that the "Brothers...have an obligation" (8:12) to "live according to the Spirit" or they "will die." "Death" and "life" are the same words and have the same meaning as they did from the very start of the chapter.

Rom. 8, once again, is a demonstration of a strict dichotomy between believers (those in the Spirit) and unbelievers (those in the Flesh).

On the contrary, it's a comparison of two ways they they can live. Note that "therefore" in 8:12 is a clear indication that Paul is drawing a conclusion from what he has just said. What follows "therefore" is a description of the two ways that "you" (namely, the "brothers", meaning Christians) can live, each with a different outcome. "Life" and "death" are clearly defined by the previous verses, so we know what they mean here.

So I need to ask you... Is having faith in Christ something "pleasing" to God (please read my OP again)??

That metaphysical issue is moot here. The question is whether a believer who lives in obedience to the flesh is pleasing God. It's impossible. That's the point.

With regard to your metaphysical approach, I must ask, again, if Paul says that those believers who lived prior to Christ lived according to the Spirit. We will survey Paul's writings and find that he taught that they did not. We will draw some conclusions from that concerning faith, too.

In regards to Col. 2:13 in context. The whole point is that a Christian is "dead" in trespasses and it's GOD who raises that person to life. The spiritually dead cannot raise themselves to life!!!

Again, I asked you to read the chapter and tell us where faith is mentioned. That's important here, considering that the word you translate "made alive" is only used by Paul in Eph 2 and Col 2 (once in each chapter).

Again, go down to your local cemetary, and scream out as loud as you like, to those in their graves. Tell them that you'll give them a hand out of that hole if they'll only reach out and except your invitation. You'll be waiting a looooong time. And it's the exact same way with the spiritually dead.

I probably won't learn any more about Eph 2 and Col 2 there than I will learn from appeals to human analogies and demagoguery here. Paul is very clear, however, as you will see. Again, what does Col 2 say? How, in particular, does it say we were raised to life (2:12)?

[Calvinist4Him]

I'm sorry... You were explaining that your definition of ginōskō isn't self-serving? :rofl:

No, I was explaining the importance of context, because the meaning of a word depends on the given context. Yes, it's true, believe it or not words can have more than one meaning.

[amishrockstar]

Chappie,

Yes, the "command is to keep the vow that one makes to God" in Deu.23:23...

Whether this command effects a change or not, has no bearing on it being a genuine command. Whether man obeys or not, that doesn't make it any less of a command. It doesn't neccessarily follow to say: God gives a command, men don't obey God- therefore, freewill.

Just because man, at one time (in the Garden), was morally neutral (able to choose good or evil), that doesn't mean men are capable of this anymore. It certainly doesn't mean God now must retract His command because now man is unable to fullfill it either.

God "set the bar" in the Garden (absolute, perfect obedience), Adam could freely choose between good or evil. Since Adam's fall, should God now lower that "bar"?? If He did (lower the bar of perfection), He wouldn't be God. The Lord has a standard, and man in his fallen state cannot on his own, meet that standard. Is God any less "just" for keeping the standard of perfection right where it was originally?

I don't know of a single Reformed minister, teacher, etc. that didn't say that Adam had freewill. Adam DID have freewill- I believe that... The question is, does "fallen man" have the ability to freely choose between good or evil as Adam did. I would argue that men can't.

The question I asked was "Can a bad tree produce good fruit??" I don't think you answered that.

What about Jeremiah 13:23
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil."

The Bible is absolutly filled with man's utter inability to do truely righteous acts apart from Christ. Yet you want to take a verse about a freewill offering and say- therefore freewill. Well, it's one thing to say that those that were God's people within Israel were able to freely do those things that please God, it's another to apply that to all of mankind.

-Matthew

...and no, Reformers don't "think that they have been designated as God's glory keepers.." God is perfectly capable of upholding His own glory without the help of a created thing.

"I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour." -Isa.43:11
:eek:

[BenK]

don't know of a single Reformed minister, teacher, etc. that didn't say that Adam had freewill. Adam DID have freewill- I believe that...

:twitch:



7. They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God
decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God,
who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have
made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They
say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect
of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him
according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where
will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret
counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether
they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam's
posterity. It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation
by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with
regard to one man that which against their will they admit with
regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose
their labour? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of
one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to
nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of
God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of
God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is
that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant
children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed
meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The
decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that
God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and
foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one
here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and
unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the
heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen?
Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be
directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I
say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him
the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.
For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it
belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand.



Adam may have had 'free will' inasmuch as he chose what he chose. But Adam's choice to sin had be inexorably ordained by God from creation. Even if we were to allow, for the sake of argument, that Adam had free will in the full libertarian sense, Calvin's own criticism of this view is telling: Why would we strain at the gnat of Adam's sin and swallow the camel of the total depravity of the whole human race? For there is nothing 'natural' (ie. aside from God's own activity) about the sinfulness of men through adam. Calvin is crystal clear on this point: that human beings are born into inescapable sin and misery and will continue forever in eternal torment is by the will and the power of God alone. As he asks 'I again ask how it is
that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant
children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed
meet to God?'

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

:twitch:



7. They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God
decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God,
who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have
made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They
say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect
of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him
according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where
will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret
counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether
they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam's
posterity. It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation
by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with
regard to one man that which against their will they admit with
regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose
their labour? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of
one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to
nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of
God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of
God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is
that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant
children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed
meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The
decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that
God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and
foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one
here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and
unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the
heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen?
Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be
directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I
say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him
the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.
For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it
belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand.



Adam may have had 'free will' inasmuch as he chose what he chose. But Adam's choice to sin had be inexorably ordained by God from creation. Even if we were to allow, for the sake of argument, that Adam had free will in the full libertarian sense, Calvin's own criticism of this view is telling: Why would we strain at the gnat of Adam's sin and swallow the camel of the total depravity of the whole human race? For there is nothing 'natural' (ie. aside from God's own activity) about the sinfulness of men through adam. Calvin is crystal clear on this point: that human beings are born into inescapable sin and misery and will continue forever in eternal torment is by the will and the power of God alone. As he asks 'I again ask how it is
that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant
children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed
meet to God?'
I just don't get it. If God causes us to do something, how is it sin? How is it anything but obedience?

[Ormly]

:twitch:



7. They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God
decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God,
who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have
made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They
say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect
of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him
according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where
will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret
counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether
they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam's
posterity. It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation
by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with
regard to one man that which against their will they admit with
regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose
their labour? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of
one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to
nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of
God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of
God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is
that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant
children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed
meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The
decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that
God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and
foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one
here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and
unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the
heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen?
Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be
directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I
say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him
the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.
For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it
belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand.



Adam may have had 'free will' inasmuch as he chose what he chose. But Adam's choice to sin had be inexorably ordained by God from creation. Even if we were to allow, for the sake of argument, that Adam had free will in the full libertarian sense, Calvin's own criticism of this view is telling: Why would we strain at the gnat of Adam's sin and swallow the camel of the total depravity of the whole human race? For there is nothing 'natural' (ie. aside from God's own activity) about the sinfulness of men through adam. Calvin is crystal clear on this point: that human beings are born into inescapable sin and misery and will continue forever in eternal torment is by the will and the power of God alone. As he asks 'I again ask how it is
that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant
children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed
meet to God?'

Because Adam never became depraved, totally or otherwise. Ergo, his offspring didn't either.

Orm

[amishrockstar]

BenK,

Calvin in no way contridicts what I said. What he wrote in the "Institutes" and what I was saying about freewill are two different aspects of "the fall." My whole point was that Adam was "morally neutral," in other words, his "will" was NOT bound. So he could choose between good or evil. Calvin on the other hand is speaking of God's sovereignty, and how He wasn't at all taken by surprise as to what Adam did- Yes He even ordained it would happen (Christ was the "lamb" slain from the foundation of the world- Rev.13:8). The VERY first sentence, is a clue that Calvin and I are arguing two distinct points.

When Calvin wrote: "They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert." He's arguing that the "omnipotence of God" is being called into question- and I agree with him. I wasn't specifically addressing God's omnipotence in what I wrote- but I guess I need to remember that Arminianism and Calvinism are two different languages.

Freewill never has, and never will mean, that man as a created being, can work independantly of his Creator ("creature-power" is never independant). Freewill, in the sense that Adam had it, and what I wrote in my post, has to do with his "will" not being bound by a corrupt nature, therefore, able to choose good or evil. Freewill does not mean Adam could work outside God's sovereign control. The "fall" did NOT take God by surprise, He foreordained that all this should come to pass for His glory.

Hopefully that clears up the misunderstanding

-Matthew

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." -Jn.10:27

[amishrockstar]

Bill the Cat,

You wrote:" I just don't get it. If God causes us to do something, how is it sin? How is it anything but obedience?"

The Biblical, and Calvinistic position is not that God causes us to sin against our "will." At the time of the "fall" God wasn't holding a "divine gun" to Adams back, while Adam cried out, "No, No please I don't want to do this." God does not force people to sin against their "will" or "nature."

God ordains all to come to pass in such a way that he has a morally superior reason for it happening that way- HIS GLORY... maybe if I give a couple examples of this from the bible, it might help...

Was the crucifixion of Christ an "evil" act by men?? I'd say it was...

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain..."Acts 2"23

Here you have an example of God determining one thing, while men were acting according to their nature, and with "wicked hands have crucified and slain" Christ.

How about this:
"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." Acts 4:27,28

Again, man's doing one thing (wickedness), while God is determining another (His glory).

Last one:

"And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God? But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."

Joseph's brother's sold him into slavery (that was a "wicked" act), but God meant/ purposed that "wicked" act for good. It was the "act" that God meant for good- God didn't simply say, "well Joseph's brothers are doing a wicked thing here so I'm going to turn it into something positive"- before any of these examples of "wicked" acts were done, God had predestined them to come to pass.

Anyway Bill, let me know what your $0.02 is.

-Matthew

[Ormly]

"God had predestined them to come to pass."

No! What He knew ahead of time caused His divine plan to be performed as He purposed, BECAUSE OF IT not in spite of it.. [Read all that very carefully]

Orm

[Chappie]

Chappie,
Yes, the "command is to keep the vow that one makes to God" in Deu.23:23...

Moreover, the vow is a consequence of freewill... Alternatively, are you suggesting that the vow was the command, instead if keeping the vow that one has made... Either way, the evidence of freewill is clearly evident..

Whether this command effects a change or not, has no bearing on it being a genuine command. Whether man obeys or not, that doesn't make it any less of a command. It doesn't necessarily follow to say: God gives a command; men don't obey God- therefore, freewill.

Sure it does... If God issues a command and then causes men to disobey, only then is the will not free.. Moreover, if God causes the disobedience, then upon causation, it ceases to be disobedience.. Only when men act in opposition (disobedience) to God's commands, is it called sin.. Stop this... some things are so self evident as to render opposition to them senile...

Just because man, at one time (in the Garden), was morally neutral (able to choose good or evil), that doesn't mean men are capable of this anymore. It certainly doesn't mean God now must retract His command because now man is unable to fulfill it either.

How is this possible when Adam and Eve did not even know the difference between the two (Good and evil) until after they ate... Adam chose neither Good nor evil, as he was unaware of the concept pertaining to either... What Adam did was disobey God's command... Sin equals disobedience..

God "set the bar" in the Garden (absolute, perfect obedience), Adam could freely choose between good or evil. Since Adam's fall, should God now lower that "bar"?? If He did (lower the bar of perfection), He wouldn't be God. The Lord has a standard, and man in his fallen state cannot on his own, meet that standard. Is God any less "just" for keeping the standard of perfection right where it was originally?

Prior to the eating from the fruit of the tree, Adam did not know the difference between Good and evil. He was aware of obedience and consequence, and disobedience and consequence... He ate of the tree because he wanted to be like God, to know good from evil..

Genesis 3 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain


1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

You really need to spend more time studying your bible

I don't know of a single Reformed minister, teacher, etc. that didn't say that Adam had freewill. Adam DID have freewill- I believe that... The question is, does "fallen man" have the ability to freely choose between good or evil as Adam did. I would argue that men can't.

I believe that others have dispelled your illusion that no other reformers have said that Adam did not have freewill... Again, the bible clearly teaches that a pre-fallen Adam did not have the ability to choose between Good and evil... but just in case:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The question I asked was "Can a bad tree produce good fruit??" I don't think you answered that.

In my life as a farm boy from Mississippi, I have picked both good apples and bad apples from the same tree...

David was called a man after God's own heart, yet he murdered Uriah and committed adultery with Bathsheba. Good tree or bad tree...

Moses was spoken to by God face to face, called by God a friend, but was not allowed to enter the promised land, good tree or bad tree...

All men are bad trees, there is none righteous, no not one.. Now, I ask you, did Moses, David, Paul, even John The Baptist, ever do anything good in the sight of God....

You do not even understand the intent of the good tree good fruit, bad tree bad fruit scenario in the bible... You asked assuming that you knew the answer… Do you?

What about Jeremiah 13:23
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil."

The Bible is absolutly filled with man's utter inability to do truely righteous acts apart from Christ.

Your problem arises when you assume that there is any man under the sun that is absolutely outside of God's influence... The heavens declare his Glory.. This knowledge of God alone is sufficient to cause men to do Good... No man is absolutely absent from God.. Still it is the Gospel that is called the power of God unto salvation... The Ethiopian cannot change his skin, but through faith, God can....

Yet you want to take a verse about a freewill offering and say- therefore freewill. Well, it's one thing to say that those that were God's people within Israel were able to freely do those things that please God, it's another to apply that to all of mankind.

Most men of reason realize that a freewill offering is a product of a freewill. We believe these truths to be self evident...

[BenK]

Freewill never has, and never will mean, that man as a created being, can work independantly of his Creator ("creature-power" is never independant). Freewill, in the sense that Adam had it, and what I wrote in my post, has to do with his "will" not being bound by a corrupt nature, therefore, able to choose good or evil. Freewill does not mean Adam could work outside God's sovereign control.

They should rewrite the Westminster Confession with a clause denying the law of non-contradiction. They really should.

1. Adam was capable of choosing good or evil.
2. Adam was not capable of choosing what God did not ordain he would choose.
3. God ordained that Adam would not choose good.
4. Adam was not capable of choosing good.

But 1 and 4 are contradictory.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

[amishrockstar]

Hey BenK,

What does the Westminster Confession got to do with ME??

[amishrockstar]

Hey Chappie,

"Most men of reason realize that a freewill offering is a product of a freewill."
Who are these guys?? Who are you appealing to?? This is a fallacy... your making your appeal to "most men of reason" (argumentum ad populum).

Thanks for the answer to my question on the "bad tree", but I don't have to assume that I know the answer- I do know it. Christ gave the answer in Mat.7, 12, and Luke 6. I was curious what your thoughts were.

How have others "dispelled" my "illusion that no other reformers have said that Adam did not have freewill," where in the world are you getting that from?? Did you read my post to BenK, where I take the time to answer this assertion??

I "really need to spend more time studying" my Bible- Once again, a fallacy (Ad hominem), instead of dealing with the issues of freewill you want to attack my character.

I'd like you to defend your position... I'm not the issue. If you can't offer any sound biblical arguments, other than the word "freewill" being in the Bible. Then why are you wasting your time. The Bible isn't a dictionary that you just show up to and pick out a word or two and say "see, I'm right, because the word is in the Bible." I said that the Bible doesn't teach that man had a "will" that is free. His will is in bondage, he's a slave to sin, he's dead in tresspasses and sins, his understanding is "darkened" etc., etc., etc.

[Calvinist4Him]

They should rewrite the Westminster Confession with a clause denying the law of non-contradiction. They really should.

Quote? Section?

1. Adam was capable of choosing good or evil.
2. Adam was not capable of choosing what God did not ordain he would choose.

What God did not ordain he would choose? Would you like to explain your understanding of ordaination? Your understanding seems to come from the notion that God makes the choices for humans, thus leaving them without responsibility.

3. God ordained that Adam would not choose good.

I suppose that's God's fault? :ahem:

4. Adam was not capable of choosing good.

:rofl: If you say so...

But 1 and 4 are contradictory.

Your understanding is contradictory, get with the program Ben.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

Obviously not straightfoward enough for you. :sigh:

You need the NIV equivalent of the WMC...which is suitable for...sixth graders?

[Ormly]

What God did not ordain he would choose? Would you like to explain your understanding of ordaination? Your understanding seems to come from the notion that God makes the choices for humans, thus leaving them without responsibility.




In your estimate,when does human responsibility come into play?

[GoBahnsen]

Hey, I ran across this site and wanted to know if you wanted a go at this clown!! :thumb:

http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/rlister/calvin.htm

Although I don't call myself a Calvinist anymore, it isn't because I disagree with the Tulip. Here is the opening quote from the page you linked.


Although it may seem harsh applying a passage of Scripture such as 2 Peter 2:1-3 against Christian brothers, this is in fact what this passage refers to. Christians who rise up within the Church who bring with them damnable heresies. Calvinism is a heresy which is based upon twisting a small number of Scripture verses to make them fit a doctrinal belief. Calvinism denies the all sufficiency of the atoning death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and makes vain His command to go out into all the world preaching the gospel and compelling the lost sinner to come in to the Saviour.

Calvinism is a religion based upon 5 points often referred to as "TULIP" which perverts Scripture and preaches heresies which destroy soul-winning effort and turn otherwise good Christians into pew warmers. It is a system based upon teachings of men, one will rarely become a calvinist through reading the Bible, and for some strange reason otherwise good Fundamental Baptist Churches seem particularily susceptible to the heresy of this man made religion.

The links on this page are dedicated to exposing the error of this greatest enemy of soul-winning.

Greatest enemy of soul winning? The facts of history attest otherwise. It was the Calvinist puritans who established North America (USA in particular). Evangelizing the Indians while building the first universities and hospitals. One of the greatest soul winners being George Whitefield, a staunch five pointer.

I go to an OPC Church (purely Calvinistic) and some of our good friends are leaving soon for Uganda, to labor in the hot sun for the souls of poor oppressed black people. Pew warmers?

While these folks in the link might be sincere in their effort to expose what they think is doctrinal error, they are being grossly unfair and boardering on causing "divisions" within the body of Christ. They are simply... mistaken.

Edit in: I sent this email to Roy, but it was "returned from sender" (it doesn't work):
Hi Roy. Although I don't call myself a Calvinist, I am Reformed in perspective. I am a moderator on a theological web site and your link was posted for discussion by one of our assitant administrators. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1151524&posted=1#post1151524 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1151524&posted=1#post1151524) My comments appear in post #51 under GoBahnsen, that's my screen name. If you care to write back, I'd take a look.

[Ormly]

Although I don't call myself a Calvinist anymore, it isn't because I disagree with the Tulip.

What then do you disagree with that causes you to declare your departure from his fatalistic teachings.. Just curious, mind you.

[GoBahnsen]

What then do you disagree with that causes you to declare your departure from his fatalistic teachings.. Just curious, mind you.There was a whole thread done on that topic, over 10 pages, a while back. I think John Calvin was one of the greatest theologians Christ gifted His Church with. But...I'm not in this world to contend for John Calvin. Let him be read along with the other giants of the faith and let the reader decide for him/herself.

So, to answer your question: I disagree with promoting a theologian and labeling myself after his name. That being said, I do like the Reformed theologians best.

[Chappie]

There was a whole thread done on that topic, over 10 pages, a while back. I think John Calvin was one of the greatest theologians Christ gifted His Church with. But...I'm not in this world to contend for John Calvin. Let him be read along with the other giants of the faith and let the reader decide for him/herself.

So, to answer your question: I disagree with promoting a theologian and labeling myself after his name. That being said, I do like the Reformed theologians best.

:yipee: :highfive: :cheers: :b_hop:

[Ormly]

There was a whole thread done on that topic, over 10 pages, a while back. I think John Calvin was one of the greatest theologians Christ gifted His Church with. But...I'm not in this world to contend for John Calvin. Let him be read along with the other giants of the faith and let the reader decide for him/herself.

So, to answer your question: I disagree with promoting a theologian and labeling myself after his name. That being said, I do like the Reformed theologians best.

Well, that's wonderful on face value but not true in actuality, is it? For instance you have a distain for Finney who was one of the greatest man of faith; God did mighty works through his ministry, Oswald Chambers who also was and is still influencing millions by his writings and devotional, more than other devotional. Then there is A.W.Tozer who follows suit with like exploits. These are only three of many. No others are more read today on a consistent basis yet you ignore them as poison. Ever wonder why? Could it be they had insight, revelational truth, and that insight ran contrary to doctrine that is dead without it? --- intended by Christ to be so -- dead.

[GoBahnsen]

Well, that's wonderful on face value but not true in actuality, is it? For instance you have a distain for Finney who was one of the greatest man of faith; God did mighty works through his ministry, Oswald Chambers who also was and is still influencing millions by his writings and devotional, more than other devotional. Then there is A.W.Tozer who follows suit with like exploits. These are only three of many. No others are more read today on a consistent basis yet you ignore them as poison. Ever wonder why? Could it be they had insight, revelational truth, and that insight ran contrary to doctrine that is dead without it? --- intended by Christ to be so -- dead.http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59314
You might read post #3 in the link. I deal with Finney there. I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll only say that I really don't think Tozer was pure poison. I don't know Chambers well enough to comment. Finney did appear to preach another Gospel. He himself considered the Reformers to teach poison-ness doctrine, so yes...I would say that Finney's teachings were a denial of the Gospel of grace. Otherwise, he was a very outstanding person. I like the way he preached against sin. I think he meant well and I hope to see him in heaven. On a score of personal piety, he certainly deserved heaven more than I. But that isn't the score that God is looking for. If Finney or myself are found in glory... it will only be by pure grace.

[Ormly]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59314
You might read post #3 in the link. I deal with Finney there. I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll only say that I really don't think Tozer was pure poison.

That's big of you since he did mighty exploits for God.

I don't know Chambers well enough to comment

But you have rated him in the past in an unfavorable way. Odd that next the the Bible he is probably the most read Biblical author of all time --- and you don't read him.

Finney did appear to preach another Gospel. He himself considered the Reformers to teach poison-ness doctrine, so yes

And I also. I strongly believe in the sovereignty of God, His Grace and sustaining of believers. Do I preach another gospel, or a more accurate one that says, as Finney did, that there is no cheap grace coming from God?

I would say that Finney's teachings were a denial of the Gospel of grace.

Then you assume wrongly because it wasn't and he didn't. So the lack lies with you.

Otherwise, he was a very outstanding person. I like the way he preached against sin. I think he meant well and I hope to see him in heaven. On a score of personal piety, he certainly deserved heaven more than I. But that isn't the score that God is looking for. If Finney or myself are found in glory... it will only be by pure grace.

He understood that probably more than you or I and preached it more than you give him credit for so doing. He also preached the worthiness of god that struck fear in the hearts of his listeners. Perhaps that is what you really object to because the connotation is that they [we] are required to do something.

Carefully read the first chapter of 2 Peter that reveals the conditions for receiving from God that will bring one "unto full stature" in Him. In my estimation, you can't reconcile that chapter with what you embrace as the gospel. Read it from the Amplified Bible.

[GoBahnsen]

That's big of you since he did mighty exploits for God.



But you have rated him in the past in an unfavorable way. Odd that next the the Bible he is probably the most read Biblical author of all time --- and you don't read him.



And I also. I strongly believe in the sovereignty of God, His Grace and sustaining of believers. Do I preach another gospel, or a more accurate one that says, as Finney did, that there is no cheap grace coming from God?



Then you assume wrongly because it wasn't and he didn't. So the lack lies with you.



He understood that probably more than you or I and preached it more than you give him credit for so doing. He also preached the worthiness of god that struck fear in the hearts of his listeners. Perhaps that is what you really object to because the connotation is that they [we] are required to do something.

Carefully read the first chapter of 2 Peter that reveals the conditions for receiving from God that will bring one "unto full stature" in Him. In my estimation, you can't reconcile that chapter with what you embrace as the gospel. Read it from the Amplified Bible.Looks like the thread starter isn't interested in this thread anymore.

Cheap grace huh? What cheapens grace is when men think they can be good enough to qualify for it.

[Ormly]

Looks like the thread starter isn't interested in this thread anymore.

Cheap grace huh? What cheapens grace is when men think they can be good enough to qualify for it.

Same cat, same spots. Nothing's changed. But what's interesting is your assertion that grace is never earned. If you believe that then what determines God giving more of it to some, than others of His children? How come some are able to have an abundance of grace while others just have perhaps a little? Mind you both are new born in Christ which would tell us they are God's children, So as His children, why would one have more or less grace than the other except one appropriated more of it than the other? What could be the reason God would would do that except one deserved more of it?

I'm not referring to Esau and Jacob, so relax.

[Thomas2003]

So how do we answer KJV onlyers? I found this site here:
http://www.avpublications.com/

They seem kind of loopy to me. :help:

I'm a KJV onlyier. I'm also a Calvinist.

One of the biggest problems we have in the Church today is this Scriptural liberalism fostered by higher criticism and the disunity it brings into the body of Christ. It's really shameful to reduce Scripture under a modernist scientific philosophy that denies Christ. It's shameful to sit in a Bible study where everyone decides for themselves what God really said, as if they have that authority. It's just downright silly, you don't live any other aspect of your life this way but when it comes to God's law having dominion over a man, you'll really see'em squirm.

The English Protestant Reformation was a scholastic reformation, rescuing the Bible from liberalism and restoring it to it's proper place. Most modern Christians have joined counter-reformation forces in that regard, and dogmatically so.

Most of the defensive position on the Authorized Version is coming from independent baptist theology coupled to dispensational eschatology. It is a rather unique and novel presupposition whose textual base is more influenced from this novel premise, than a true defense of the Authorized Version as Scripture.

[Calvinist4Him]

I'm a KJV onlyier. I'm also a Calvinist.

Have you read James White's book "The King James Only Controversy" or D.A. Carson's book "The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism"? FYI, both authors are Calvinists.

Out of curiosity, did Gordon H. Clark influence your view of the texts behind the KJV?

[Thomas2003]

Have you read James White's book "The King James Only Controversy" or D.A. Carson's book "The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism"? FYI, both authors are Calvinists.

Out of curiosity, did Gordon H. Clark influence your view of the texts behind the KJV?


Hi,

Yes, I have but it's been a while, especially on the first one. Probably not prepared to debate those books right now. In fact, I spent about seven years immersed into this from about 90 to 97 or so, went in not knowing anything, came out holding to the Authorized Version. Actually, became a Calvinist in the process.

I have Gordon Clark's "Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism", that is the only thing I've read of his on the subject - but that was recent, maybe a year ago or so. So, it didn't influence me.

I spent years studing all the manuscript arguments &c. Even wrote people like Metzger, Pink and many others working on this for my own conscience. I got into this because I took up the NIV not knowing any of the issues based upon the advice of a friend that it was the bible just retranslated.

Well, I tell you what, I wrote something explaining all of this to someone one time, so I'll just cut and past pertinent parts of my story for you.

I began studying the NIV and found it to be very "readable," as Chris explained. It is very readable, if you think of it as a novel - I do not recommend anyone read it though, as Scripture. I believe this is because the Bible should be considered the "word of God" and should not be approached unless you are willing to receive it as such. It is not a good idea to liquidate it or use multiple versions because where they conflict you end up as your own final authority - it plants the seed of liberalism.

After a few months reading the NIV, however, I started having a lot of doubt concerning my faith. For example, in a Bible study a concept would be proposed , but in my mind a question about its validity would crop up. This continued for quite some time, I didn't understand it or where it was coming from. Even the years I was out of fellowship I never questioned or doubted the fundamental foundation of my faith, I just knew I had to live and couldn't exist with the theology I was raised in in the community we moved to. Here I was back in Church and everytime I would go I would end up with fundamental questions about the validity of my faith. I was having a crises in my life - because I no longer had confidence in my faith that the Bible was true.

Now, this is important because I was taught from childhood the Bible is the very word of God, so this new translation had an impact - I actually believed the words. This was a huge mistake, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to believe the words when I read the NIV - but this is presuppositional of the translation. It is a "message" from God. The theology behind it and all of the new versions is either liberal protestantism or neo-orthodoxy - both deny the bible is the word of God - in the historic Protestant sense and definition. They believe that the Bible is the word of man, on one hand, or contains SOME of the words of God - but is not THE word of God. It is a book of divine "guidelines" that you can decide for yourself which ones are worth keeping. No one else I knew was having problems like I was because they didn't believe the words were the "words of God" in the first place - so when they read it they didn't receive it the way I did. To them it was just moral instruction. Because when they read the NIV they didn't believe the NIV. Does this make sense? They were just reading moral ideas, "ten suggestions" keep the good, throw out the bad - I was reading Ten Commandments. They were involved in the translation process, I wasn't.

This is a fundamental issue of the liberal theology behind modern bible translations and where it departs from historic protestant theology - they are always translating, forever translating, it can never be finished or never be really correct, they can never submit to it - always questioning, always going to the original language to "shed more light", but then they can't submit to it - because maybe even more light is needed. Their standard is man and he is ever changing. Ultimate truth in liberal thinking is an unknown and an unknowable, God is hidden and the closest man can come is the thoughts of men about God recorded in the Bible. This is, of course, exactly opposite to historic protestant theology - God is revealed, not hidden, and can be known because He revealed Himself to men and recorded it in Scripture for us. Hence, we can know what He said and it can be translated correctly. This does not mean that original tongues cannot expand meaning or concepts, but it also doesn't mean that English cannot contain the words of God.

Anyway, my belief is formulated upon different foundations that the baptist dispensationalist. Textually we probably agree on much of the issues of the presuppositions and philosophy of textual criticism - but that is probably where we part.

I hold to a "Juridical Defense of the Legal Sovereignty of the Authorized Version". At least that is what I wrote on it several years ago.

I have much ecclesiastical liberty, however, I don't have much liberty when it comes to the juridical standing law. We are all subjective. I can either accept it or reject it, Scripture teaches me I am bound to accept it - just as I accept the jurisdiction of Congress or my State government. I don't decide for myself which laws I am subject to, the place I was born in within history doesn't give me that liberty concerning Scripture either. It doesn't answer the question as a philosophical premise for all people at all time, but it does for me and my conscience and how I'm going to live.

James as far as I can tell was pretty much a scallywag, but God seemed pleased to use him to establish this English version of Scripture as the fountainhead of the Common Law. I was born into a social construct of the legal Sovereignty of the word of God - I submit to that. I'm intolerant to those who through arrogance, or ignorance or both, are so willing to spit upon the blood of their brethern that have fought and died over the centuries to secure this great Foundation for us.

The thing that really bothers me about the whole issue is that most people would be terrified to approach the Internal Revenue Code with the same presupposition they do the Bible. They recognize the juridical Sovereignty of the IRS, they don't recognize the juridical Soveriegnty of the word of God - that is the big problem. They will tremble before men and be arrogant and high minded before the word of God.

Once you accept the juridical Sovereignty of the the Scripture, it cannot be fluid anymore, it has to become a fixture, you can't approach it the way the Supreme Court approaches the law, or like modern textual critics. It's no longer an matter of mere academics - but of life and how you will live it.

Anyway, that's a nutshell version of what I believe.

Cordially,

Thomas

[David O]

Well stated, Thomas. God bless you for it. I agree with you about the KJV. Plenary means a lot.

I'm always amazed at my friends who seem to be able to understand all the cool new gangsta lingo, but deem themselves incapable of comprehending the KJV.

[Thomas2003]

That's a sad comparison, I suppose the word of the ghetto has risen to such a position in the popular mind.

The Authorized Version is actually one of the easiest and most accurate to read. This is due to the translators conceptualized "biblical english," as it is sometimes called. A thirty minute instruction course on understanding its translation results in a child understanding more of the truth of Scripture than most adults, especially those with modern translations.

Since English isn't an inflective language, yet the underlying tongues are, the Reynolds committee carried over the meaning of the underlying tongues into English. Something not even attempted by modern translators. Hence, we have "you" referencing singular, and "ye" representiing plural - and other like examples in the Authorized Version.

The point being that it is often disparaged as being "archaic," and it truly is - it was archaic in 1611, this is because the Bible is an ancient book written in ancient tongues. However, this archaism is much more intelligible than modern translations because it remains truer to the meaning of the words.

Meaning, understanding - these are much more important than comfort, ease and simplicity demanded by the intellectually slothful. There is a pronounced resentment on the part of very many men against the integrity of the Authorized Version, as a result, a democratic impulse is appealed to regarding modern translations. The ghetto heart of modern man demands God speak to them "where they are," this is presented as the great premise of modern translations.

God, however, drew Moses to the top of Sinai - not the mud pits of Goshen, to speak to him. This democratic impulse seeks the lowest common denominator and really has become the ghetto of Christendom. More often than not, this plea for simplicity is a demand for perversion, hence, it is not surprising that the bible of a democratic era is also a perverted one.

[David O]

I like how you think and how you express what you think.

I just can't figure why you buy Calvinism, although I tried to buy it for a while too. The only thing I defend Calvin on now is what apparently turned his name into a slur against manly men, women's silence in churches (Chauvinist).

At least we have the KJV to agree on and we share that. I hope to be well-spoken like you someday.

[Thomas2003]

I like how you think and how you express what you think.

I just can't figure why you buy Calvinism, although I tried to buy it for a while too. The only thing I defend Calvin on now is what apparently turned his name into a slur against manly men, women's silence in churches (Chauvinist).

At least we have the KJV to agree on and we share that. I hope to be well-spoken like you someday.


I accepted Calvinism from a semi-calvinistic (e.g., southern baptist) upbringing, but it took me a long time to understand it. However, I must admit that my semi-calvinism was more semi-arminianism in actual practice and frame of thought. Although, at the time, I thought they were talking about "Calvary" and I presumed I must be a "Calvinist!" Of course, eventually, I had to be tied up and beaten with a bouqet of TULIPS, which did nothing to advance their cause. During this time I was a lay minister in our Church and was in charge of Sunday night preaching, so I spent several weeks preaching against Calvinism. A crow I now choke upon occassionally as someone reminds me of it, as I not only became a Calvinist but a Presbyterian to boot!

It requires a reorientation of one's presuppositions in tune with the teachings of the Chalcedon creed. John Calvin cannot be properly understood outside of this. This formulates a Scriptural definition of an orthodox Christology, where the early church dealt with the various heresies regarding the incarnation of Jesus Christ. These heresies were primarily Arianism and Nestorianism. Just what is the nature of the incarnation? What does it mean the Word became flesh?

In Greek philosophical thought, called Hellenism, all being was one being, the differences in being are of degree, not kind. The Greek & Roman "gods" were men that attained divinity - they scaled the chain of being. As Christianity made inroads into the world there was great difficulty in altering this presupposition in the minds of the people, especially as it regarded Jesus Christ. When one became a Christian and the Holy Ghost regenerated you - did you become potentially divine consistent with the Hellenic concept of being? If so what does this mean? The claims of Rome, even as a Christian order, consistently presented the old philosophy whereby the state and then the church were seen as the incarnation of divinity in history. This is the claim of the Pope to this day.

This problem was real then, and its real now - not merely in the Roman Catholic Church, but in every avenue of our social order. This Hellenic presupposition has resurfaced most powerfully in evolutionary thought, and of course it carries around a clipboard and tries to pretend it is "scientific," but it really is this old premise of one chain of undivided being.

The concept that the negro is a lower race is derived from this thought, today this is a political heresy, but the philosophy is required teaching in the public schools! Why is it that man must be considered to be equally evolving? If this is true, then how do we know that all men are equally evolving whereby we can rightly enforce it? You see the problems this poses.

As against this is the Bible. It teaches there is an uncreated Being of God and a created being of man, with a gulf between, that cannot be bridged. Man never becomes anything more than man, add sin into this and man becomes mortal and not only does not ascend the presupposed ladder of being, but dies.

In Greek thought salvation was not an act of grace but of self-deification, and it goes to reason, because Jesus became a philosophical gateway to divinity. In this frame of thought you might as well advertise Jesus as a blue pill to diety, on one hand; or as in many modern churches fire insurance on the other. These people heard the same Gospel you did, but they understood it in terms of their existing beliefs. So, also, do we understand the Gospel in terms of our existing beliefs - beliefs that we do not even realize are coloring our conceptions.

I became a Calvinist when I dealt with this and corrected my presuppositions to those of a Scriptural Christology - a Scriptural definition of the incarnation. I believed those Scriptures that teach that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between man and God, and another that no one may come to Father but through Him. Hence, bridging this gulf between the mortal created being of man and the Divine Uncreated being of God stands Jesus Christ alone. God became man and bridged this gulf in order to redeem man as their Federal head of a new creation. Paul calls Jesus Christ the "second Adam."

Accepting the doctrine of Creation is a prerequisite to Calvinism, as also is the doctrine of regeneration - a new creation. If you would like to discuss it more sometime I'll be happy to try and explain it.

Cordially,

Thomas

[David O]

I still like very much how you present yourself, but am wooden-headed enough to believe that I can fall away if I choose to. While I am not exactly divine, I am truly a part of the body of Christ, and if you think of marriage as Moses defined it, it is more a form of slavery see Exodus 21. He owns me. Like my wife is an extension of my body, and therefore an Ohlerking too, I am a joint heir with Jesus and am called by his name because I am a part of his bride. God has been known to divorce in the past. My wife can choose to leave me and eventually I would not be allowed to take her back, for instance, if she married another, even after he died or divorced her it would be wrong for me to remarry her. According to Moses that is, and his moral/sexual rules still seem to apply. God will not take me back if I leave him and become joined (married) to another god. I came close once. I'm sure you know all the passages, Hebrews, etc... I assume that you are most down with the P because of your Baptist upbringing, so I'm smacking it around instead of the others.

I accuse Calvinism of being oversimplification, skipping over the obvious contradictions in order to accomodate a Greek sort of fatalism. I'm an Open View guy.

What do you think of Calvin's opinion of women's silence in the church?

Oh, I was OPC when I was a Presbyterian. Admirable folks, a lot of them. I liked some RCUS guys, too (mostly 6 literal creation day guys- which I love, but not all are anymore).

I hate the tulip, but like a lot of people who dig the tulip. I like Russian Orthodox guys too, and they have icons and pray (sort of) to Mary. Some admirable folks at my own EVFree church make women teach in the sanctuary. I like them, too. Hate the women teaching disobedience, but I even like some of the women who do this. I like some transvesties similarly. This whole tolerance thing is new to me. I can oppose the crap out of people, but it is OK to like them. I can't eat with a gay Christian, but I can love one from afar.

I hope someday to speak calmly as you do about all of these things.

Also, what would you say to someone who believes that they were "made for destruction?" I know of a recent suicide attempt over this. Someone I love. Hence this sporatic post. (Please don't answer that one carelessly.)

[David O]

One more thing, I reject all creeds as filthy rags. Nothing personal, but I just think that they are only that. I won't say them when my church throws them at me. I don't feel bad about it. The guys who wrote them probably meant well, except for the philloque (sp?) problem- I side with the Russians on it, punk move on the Romans part as far as I can tell.

[Thomas2003]

I still like very much how you present yourself, but am wooden-headed enough to believe that I can fall away if I choose to.


I'm glad to see that you are not denying the doctrine of predestination, just transferring it to yourself. Predestination by God is the main problem for most on this subject. It's obvious you've grappled with it in the way you've presented the conclusion.

The problem that you are positing, however, in asserting personal predestination is the implicit denial that your sins have been forgiven.

Consider, if you can choose to fall away then what you are claiming is that you can adjudicate your sin in Christ, thus, that you stand between God and Christ! But the Scripture says that Christ stands between God and man and God adjudicates your sin in Christ's blood from the eternal decree.




While I am not exactly divine, I am truly a part of the body of Christ, and if you think of marriage as Moses defined it, it is more a form of slavery see Exodus 21. He owns me. Like my wife is an extension of my body, and therefore an Ohlerking too, I am a joint heir with Jesus and am called by his name because I am a part of his bride. God has been known to divorce in the past.

Ah, but not His people that are called by His name. He divorced the social order from their legal standing, this is done in lieu of death as an act of Grace.

My wife can choose to leave me and eventually I would not be allowed to take her back, for instance, if she married another, even after he died or divorced her it would be wrong for me to remarry her. According to Moses that is, and his moral/sexual rules still seem to apply. God will not take me back if I leave him and become joined (married) to another god.

I think this part is another discussion because we must determine exactly what this means "married to another god."


I came close once. I'm sure you know all the passages, Hebrews, etc... I assume that you are most down with the P because of your Baptist upbringing, so I'm smacking it around instead of the others.

I am sorry, I do not understand. I do not know what "most down with P" means, or "smacking it around instead of the others."

Ah, wait, I think I get it - you are saying the P in TULIP. Can you define "most down?"



I accuse Calvinism of being oversimplification, skipping over the obvious contradictions in order to accomodate a Greek sort of fatalism. I'm an Open View guy.

Fatalism - no, not at all. There is nothing impersonal about predestination.

What do you think of Calvin's opinion of women's silence in the church?

I'm a fan of John Knox's Monstrous Regiment of Women. I believe that women have a special ordination, but, because of the fall are prohibited from many offices - not because they are incapable. In fact, I would say their ordination is superior in many ways, hence their legal standing is superior. But, this doesn't mean they are autonomous.

As far as Church goes Scripture indicates that silence is in regards to teaching, exercising authority and usurpation. However, it does not prohibit God from using women in Judgment (Isaiah 3:12). I've heard of some that hold that women should not even sing - but I do not believe that because this is not a usurpation.

Oh, I was OPC when I was a Presbyterian. Admirable folks, a lot of them. I liked some RCUS guys, too (mostly 6 literal creation day guys- which I love, but not all are anymore).

I attend an OPC congregation.



I hate the tulip, but like a lot of people who dig the tulip.


I dislike the way the TULIP is used.


<snip>

Also, what would you say to someone who believes that they were "made for destruction?" I know of a recent suicide attempt over this. Someone I love. Hence this sporatic post. (Please don't answer that one carelessly.)

I don't think I'm qualified to speak to this under these circumstances.

Cordially,

Thomas

[Thomas2003]

One more thing, I reject all creeds as filthy rags. Nothing personal, but I just think that they are only that. I won't say them when my church throws them at me. I don't feel bad about it. The guys who wrote them probably meant well, except for the philloque (sp?) problem- I side with the Russians on it, punk move on the Romans part as far as I can tell.


I was raised with a hostile disdain for anything Roman Catholic - it took me a long time to understand the meaning and importance of the creeds.

The term "creed" comes from the Latin, credo - which means "I believe." These are important because God's Church is a confessing Church - we must confess with our mouths. Romans 10:10

I would suggest you reconsider the filthy rags position because it is the work of the Holy Spirit to draw the confession from man and to which God credits salvation. The creeds glorify God greatly because they confess as unified confession what the Scriptures teach about God and in a way that was divisive. They foster unity in truth, not modern ecumenicism.

Hence, they begin "I believe...."

Your position on the filioque is probably the foundation of the problem you have with Calvinism as a whole. What do you mean by "punk move?"

Cordially,

Thomas

[David O]

No, I found out about the filique after I had already rejected Calvinism. The punk move was to change a creed that everyone had agreed upon after they got back to Rome. I know that move well. Assuming authority that you don't have, and acting hurt when you get called out on it. I side with the Russians.

I like the Catholic church a lot these days though, especially the new Pope.

As for predestination, I hate it's tulip representation as much as I hate all the other parts of the tulip. A people has been predestined, not individual persons. There is nothing personal about predestination. We are free to refuse or squander the call, it is not irresistable. Irresistable grace would be rape or seduction, which under Moses was punished by marriage to the victim without the possibility of divorce, which would amount to eternal security. God can reject us after forgiving us, reinstate the debt, and sell us and our families off into slavery if he feels like it.

Here's my creed; I confess that Jesus christ is come in the flesh. That's all that is necessary for such a test, according to John.

As for the filthy rags statement, I stand by it, creeds are the work of men. Nothing is to be added to the Bible. Paul was divisive to Peter when he called him out on the circumcision stuff. Peter was man enough to admit he was wrong and get back with the program but could have easily cried schizm and split the church while pretending to be the good guy. Then he could have called for reconcilliation. He and the guy who was doing his Dad's wife could have worked together on the whole unity thing.

I would chooseto be on Luther's side of the anathematizing he and Calvin did to each other if forced to choose. Still, it's pleasant dealing with lots of Calvinists, like you. If you share my creed, I can assume we are brothers. Calvin's main problem was that he thought that knowing God and knowing yourself were the 2 most important things. Knowing yourself is 'knowing' yourself and wastes a lot of kleenix. That turns into depression and eventually leads to death. We don't need to focus on ourselves.

I'm one of the guys who says women's silence in church is actual silence. No singing, or even writing of songs. Read about Fanny Crosby's life. As for usurpation by singing, I assume you have never played in a band with a 'chick singer' as they are often called. This is one of the most consistent and flagrant forms of usurpation known to man. Also look at what church music became once women had taken over the music part (especially the organ and piano). Compare Fanny Crosby to Led Zeppelin. Men still sing out loud at rock concerts. Many men stay shockingly silent in church now. They have reversed the rules.

Married to another God; see Aholah and Aholibah in Ezekiel 23 (sleeping around), then Isaiah 50 (divorce), then Hebrews 10:38, 39 (divorce/perdition).

Nice talking with you as always.

[Thomas2003]

No, I found out about the filique after I had already rejected Calvinism. The punk move was to change a creed that everyone had agreed upon after they got back to Rome. I know that move well. Assuming authority that you don't have, and acting hurt when you get called out on it. I side with the Russians.

I'm concerned about the doctrine. Do you reject that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

I like the Catholic church a lot these days though, especially the new Pope

I fear the gentlemen is another antichrist to me. Although, my pastor suggested during the confirmation that we pray that God would move and cause a pope to deny his claim and utilize his power to terminate the seat - but this didn't happen. Maybe it still will some day, I'm not holding my breath - they have serious errors that spawn centuries. At some point the consience becomes seared to the issues as a whole and it doesn't take centuries.



As for predestination, I hate it's tulip representation as much as I hate all the other parts of the tulip. A people has been predestined, not individual persons. There is nothing personal about predestination. We are free to refuse or squander the call, it is not irresistable. Irresistable grace would be rape or seduction, which under Moses was punished by marriage to the victim without the possibility of divorce, which would amount to eternal security. God can reject us after forgiving us, reinstate the debt, and sell us and our families off into slavery if he feels like it.

I don't like the way the TULIP is used, but I do believe it is a valid presentation of the doctrines. Hence, I would disagree with the baptistic americana view of predestination you hold.

However, I would suggest that maybe you hold down the sexual metaphors, they color a lot of your speech and it really isn't necessary to the discussion. While certainly marriage is a proper metaphor for Christ in relation to the Church - I wouldn't be so quick to use crass metaphors in regards to it. I made that mistake once and I wish I could take it back because it didn't go over well at all.



Here's my creed; I confess that Jesus christ is come in the flesh. That's all that is necessary for such a test, according to John.

I would disagree with this, not the testimony, but conclusion - it is rather truncated and inconsistent with the Scripture as a whole. Nestorius & Pelagius could make the same testimony and it certainly doesn't pass any test of a credible profession. Not that you have to make one, but the "necessary" limitation.



As for the filthy rags statement, I stand by it, creeds are the work of men. Nothing is to be added to the Bible. Paul was divisive to Peter when he called him out on the circumcision stuff. Peter was man enough to admit he was wrong and get back with the program but could have easily cried schizm and split the church while pretending to be the good guy. Then he could have called for reconcilliation. He and the guy who was doing his Dad's wife could have worked together on the whole unity thing.

The Scripture teaches that our righteousness is as filthy rags before Him, not His work through us. It is the Holy Spirit that leads men to confession, while certainly no creed should ever be held to replace Scripture, however, if it is a correct presentation of what Scripture teaches it is deserving of respect. If one respects the Scripture then one must respect the doctrines of the Scriptures, whether they are delivered through a secondary medium or not.

I would chooseto be on Luther's side of the anathematizing he and Calvin did to each other if forced to choose. Still, it's pleasant dealing with lots of Calvinists, like you. If you share my creed, I can assume we are brothers. Calvin's main problem was that he thought that knowing God and knowing yourself were the 2 most important things. Knowing yourself is 'knowing' yourself and wastes a lot of kleenix. That turns into depression and eventually leads to death. We don't need to focus on ourselves.

As to your creed I would expand it greatl as it applied to me and include a personal testimony of regeneration and the nature of Christ and His birth, sacrifice, resurrection and atonement.

There is to much introspection in the modern Church, that is certain. Humanistic psychology defines more "bible study" today.

I'm one of the guys who says women's silence in church is actual silence. No singing, or even writing of songs.

This should probably make you very unpopular in the majority of Churches.

Read about Fanny Crosby's life. As for usurpation by singing, I assume you have never played in a band with a 'chick singer' as they are often called. This is one of the most consistent and flagrant forms of usurpation known to man. Also look at what church music became once women had taken over the music part (especially the organ and piano). Compare Fanny Crosby to Led Zeppelin. Men still sing out loud at rock concerts. Many men stay shockingly silent in church now. They have reversed the rules.

While this is certainly important, I think if you carry it to it's logical conclusion you must silence the voice of the Church as an institution, yet she is required by Scripture to teach and be a voice to the civil realm.

God exalts women, we should as well, and protect them as the lesser vessel, but not see them as a lower life form. I see the hints of greek philosophical presupposition coloring your interpretation.

I wouldn't ever conclude that a woman is barred from worshipping God, which is what you must conclude, it's an unlawful restraint against the conscience.

Cordially,

Thomas

[David O]

The Romans changed the wording (filloque) from what the Bible says. I side with the Russians on that, too. Is your argument with the Bible as written was insufficient for use in creating a creed?



I still like this pope. He ain't perfect. He's a lot better than Jezebel in Revelation, and God even gives her time to repent.



Baptists are generally frustrated with me over this stuff, too. Americana is a word I take as a great compliment.

I'm busy deciding whether to pull off some metaphors, but the Bible is much more crass than I. See Aholah and Aholibah and the horse reference. Straying from God is consistently called whoring.


" inconsistent with the Scripture as a whole. " It is scripture. 1 John 4.



The secondary medium is filthy. The Bible is enough. Calvin's ideas about it were off.



"As to your creed I would expand it greatl as it applied to me and include a personal testimony of regeneration and the nature of Christ and His birth, sacrifice, resurrection and atonement." ...and yet John (the Holy Spirit speaking through him) thought it sufficient.

"There is to much introspection in the modern Church, that is certain. Humanistic psychology defines more "bible study" today." We match here!



"This should probably make you very unpopular in the majority of Churches." Oddly enough I was mostly adored at the churches I tried while I was searching for one that loved the Bible. And welcomed back to the one I left over the introduction of women teachers and preachers. A few pastors yelled, but I stayed pretty civil and even mostly respectful. I was raised a missionary kid and know how to impress at church, plus I love the Bible and church people tend to appreciate that. I respect authority, people are drawn to those who respect authority. Horrified and drawn at the same time. Men like me in a scared way. Children are thrilled with me because I talk nice about/to their Dads. Women run to a man who will conduct himself in an orderly respectful submissive-to-bosses manner.



"While this is certainly important, I think if you carry it to it's logical conclusion you must silence the voice of the Church as an institution, yet she is required by Scripture to teach and be a voice to the civil realm."
She (the woman) is allowed few teaching opportunities, and they are specific. None need be done in a church, where she is to be silent.

The church is for teaching, not for requiring adherance to their own creations, or for contradicting the Bible's commandments.

"God exalts women, we should as well, and protect them as the lesser vessel, but not see them as a lower life form. I see the hints of greek philosophical presupposition coloring your interpretation." Strict Bible-literalism is all I got this from. We are not all equal. Wives should reverence their husbands. Slaves obey their masters, especially froward ones. Without all contradiction the lesser is blessed of the greater- there is lesser and there is greater. Marx and Susan B. Anthony were wrong. Jews are more, I am lesser. Natural branch vs. wild branch. I am way less than my pastor. He is judged more harshly because of his lofty position, and worthy of double honor just for holding that position. Angels for the time being are higher than humans. Hierarchy exists and is to be respected no matter how poorly it is executed.

"I wouldn't ever conclude that a woman is barred from worshipping God, which is what you must conclude, it's an unlawful restraint against the conscience. "

It is Paul's (God's) restraint on women to be silent in church, but I worship silently all the time, too. At my desk at work. In church even. Women can shut up and worship, I'm sure of it. I've only met one who was willing to try, but you would think that it would be worth trying because the Bible plainly states it. It is a shame for women to speak in the church.

[Thomas2003]

The Romans changed the wording (filloque) from what the Bible says. I side with the Russians on that, too. Is your argument with the Bible as written was insufficient for use in creating a creed?

First, why don't you explain the details of your claim, because I don't know if we are on the same page. When you say Russians, who do you mean? Armenians? And what time frame?



I still like this pope. He ain't perfect. He's a lot better than Jezebel in Revelation, and God even gives her time to repent.

He is still sitting in the same office and doesn't have the grace to repent. What particularly has he done differently than any other pope?


Baptists are generally frustrated with me over this stuff, too. Americana is a word I take as a great compliment.

I meant unique to baptistic conceptions, generally found only in America.

I'm busy deciding whether to pull off some metaphors, but the Bible is much more crass th