Is This Calvinist Doubletalk?

[seer]

PURPOSE OF THE SCRIPTURE WARNINGS AGAINST APOSTASY

By Loraine Boettner:



Arminians sometimes bring forth from the Scriptures the warnings against apostasy or falling away, which are addressed to believers, and which, it is argued, imply a possibility of their falling away. There is, of course, a sense in which it is possible for believers to fall away, — when they are viewed simply in themselves, with reference to their own powers and capacities, and apart from God’s purpose or design with respect to them. And it is admitted by all that believers can fall into sin temporarily. The primary purpose of these passages, however, is to induce men to co-operate willingly with God for the accomplishment of His purposes. They are inducements which produce constant humility, watchfulness, and diligence. In the same way a parent, in order to get the willing co-operation of a child, may tell it to stay out of the way of an approaching automobile, when all the time the parent has no intention of ever letting the child get into a position where it would be injured. When God plies a soul with fears of falling it is by no means a proof that God in His secret purpose intends to permit him to fall. These fears may be the very means which God has designed to keep him from falling.


Does this make sense? Since christians know God has no intention of allowing the believer to actually fall away the scriptures that were meant to induce fear and obedience by suggesting that they can lose all weight.

[Berean Todd]

Does this make sense? Since christians know God has no intention of allowing the believer to actually fall away the scriptures that were meant to induce fear and obedience by suggesting that they can lose all weight.
If you are referring to the "tough" passages in Hebrews for example, no I do not think that answer is sufficient, but neither do I believe that a believer can fall away.

[Ormly]

The below is something I posted to another fellow in another forum in regards to what you will find out when reading. I post it here also for everyones evaluation who has like concerns with Calvin and his views of the gospel. I trust it will a help to those not yet "locked up" in their persuasion.

:smile:rm


He wrote:

Calvinism is just a term. I'm defending the truth of scripture.

It just gets old knocking down the same straw men over and over. Dave hunt purposely misquoted Spurgeon in his book...and of course, the ( ... ) that he uses leaves out critical statements that contradict the way he was presenting Spureons beliefs. When we use...we expect it to be honestly done.

He also left words out of quotes that were important and changed the meaning of the point.

Jacob Arminius wrote:"Next to the perusal of the Scriptures. Which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin's commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms that Helmich himself: for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the Library of the Fathers: so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above all others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent gift of prophecy." (Quoted by CH Spurgeon in Commenting and Commentaries)


Indeed Calvinism is a term except for Calvinists. For them, he is the gospel. ---and you know that, so lets not be coy. I've had this conversation with too many Calvinists.

RE: Dave Hunt. Not a true statement by you unless you can support it with side by side documentation. Hunt is a credible writer and mis-quoting is a no, no for one who values his own credibility in the writing world. Surely you can see that. Not only that but he gives a serious bibliography for everyone wishing to check out his sources. What more need be said -- what more do you need?

The question you need to deal with, regardless of Dave Hunt's book, is whether or not Calvin followed the teaching of Christ (http://www.clicksor.com/search4.php?q=%3C%3F6YH%5BAC%2F%3D%60J%3DEE%7B%3C%60d%3F%25%24WH%3CJ%3DSC%3C%246AU%5B%7E0R%3ABwSCnH%3CJz+O%40%7E5%5BU%3D%25_R3_q5%28%24+%22%5B2%7C1l%2BR%3C%2C%3Ff%3C-%22HL%5D%28%21Q%60K%7BAY%26%2C%40%28Ucf%2F%7D%27O%5DDY%295Yy%21d%7B%2C%25Z%3D%5Ed%3E94ZdU%3D%25_R%3A_S%24h_3%21lU%5B%7E0R%28b%5BnW%2FhPHj%2F%27%3D%7C+m%7E%7E%27X6%7B-%40%2A%2B%5E%2A+EB%3B%5D%24H%3C2%28%3A%3C%23.%3Am%26.%40X+a%2F9%2FgN-p%60%21_%27Y%25+%26T%24h%287-l9.%24F%7E%7E%3CJ%7Cw%26H%22z%3EDHBH%3CI%23_%2FY%25+%26TDH%60%3CR%5E8%3A%26WH%3CIipw%7ChpdU%5B%7E0R%3ADU%5B%7E0R%2C%3E%3B_h%287-lSSC%3E%3CDP%27GKP.%40m%7E%7E%27X%2C%2C%3E%3B_h%287-lSSC%3E%3CDP%27ptP6%2C%7D%2C%3B_W%29%3A%60L%28%7CY%3B%3ACT%7D-W%7BAG%7DAI%7C%3D) in the fullest sense. If not, why not? I believe he compromised Christ to justify and thus prop up his own conceit in an effort to support an idea given him by his mentor, Augustine; "The City of God (http://www.clicksor.com/search4.php?q=%3C%3F6YH%5BAC%2F%3D%60J%3DEI%7C-Cd%3F%25%24WH%3CJ%3DSC%3Cct%2C%5D%7B%5DrfPH%7Dd%3E94ZJ8d%3D%2C%2AZ2u+%2B%3B%2B%7C0+9%7D%2CgkO%24%7CW%2FhR%3C%2C%3Ff%3C-%22HL%5D%28%21Q%60K%7BAY%26%2C%40%28Ucf%2F%7D%27O%5DEY%295Y3%40%3FYY%23%3A%7CT%7E%5EW0a%7C5%3AgY%25+%26T%2BW%3EcPHjSCn%2A%5BCB.h%257%5Bl8%3C%2A%5E.%25%3E%29.%7CF5%2A%7BJ%60w-4%3D%7D%3B%7Eh_3%21l%2Cd%3D%2C%2AZb%5Ds%2F%3B%3F%5Bm%26.%40X0a%279%5Bg%2C3.T%23%24%5BN%3Dp%3CJ%7Cu%60%7BAPJ%60D%26%3F%2Bm%26.%40X%7BAM%27U%7E%214%3FkJ%60DmepNjsYY%25+%26T%7E%60Y%25+%26T%3B%5D%23%3Fa%2 79%5BgWH%3CI%27GKB%3CDd%3B%25h%257%5Bl%3A%3B%5D%23%3Fa%279%5BgWH%3CI%27GKBemd8%3B%2B%3F5%24k%2B%7E%2FP%3A%7Bm%7E%7E%27X%5E%5Ek%3EDB%3C%5DBN%5B)". The thing that amazes me is his blindness to the teaching of the love of God. He minimises that part of God in favor of the emphasising the wrath of God, hence, the compeling of his followers to compel, by force, if necessary, 'to bring them in to 'his' church' -- and this based on a twisted verse of scripture.. Why do you believe non-Calvinists are looked upon as heretics by your camp? That is just another form of compeling only without the big stick or club that I've had expressed to me from some Calvinists on these forums who would gladly use it on me because of my "heresy". --- Real love of God there or serious wash of the brain in the effort to make hate be love in the persons thinking?

Please consider that Augustine was responsible for the Catholic inquistion and Calvin, the Geneva inquistion. Both killed people and thought they were doing God a favor, right? When considering all the injury they've done, how right can their views on the gospel be? Shouldn't you begin to question him instead of attacking those who question him from an honest heart or are you one of those who believes anyone who opposes Calvin can have an honest heart -- ergo, in your mind he is the gospel.

Side note: Arminius and his folowers showed more love to Calvin and his followers than Calvin and his folowers showed him --- think about it.:wink:

[GoBahnsen]

Indeed Calvinism is a term except for Calvinists. For them, he is the gospel. ---and you know that, so lets not be coy. I've had this conversation with too many Calvinists.


This is very telling Orm. None of the decent Arminians here on this board would stoop this low. Calvin is the Gospel? Oh please!

Now Calvinists do believe that Calvinism is a good systematic model of what the Scripture teaches. Not perfect, but they can't find a better one. Spurgeon himself said that Calvinism is a nickname for the Gospel. By that he means that the doctrines of grace express the message of the Gospel. But Spurgeon isn't going to trade his Bible in for a copy of Calvin's Institutes.

I don't really like the label of Calvinist, but it helps to identify me, so that others know where i'm coming from doctrinally. If people think that calling myself a Calvinist means that I worship Calvin, or that I test all things by The Institutes and hold fast that which is good, they are missing the point of taking on the label.

I suppose that's what you do Orm. You are one ... oh never mind. Have a nice day Orm.

[Solly]

:hehe: *stmn

[GoBahnsen]

PURPOSE OF THE SCRIPTURE WARNINGS AGAINST APOSTASY

By Loraine Boettner:



Arminians sometimes bring forth from the Scriptures the warnings against apostasy or falling away, which are addressed to believers, and which, it is argued, imply a possibility of their falling away. There is, of course, a sense in which it is possible for believers to fall away, — when they are viewed simply in themselves, with reference to their own powers and capacities, and apart from God’s purpose or design with respect to them. And it is admitted by all that believers can fall into sin temporarily. The primary purpose of these passages, however, is to induce men to co-operate willingly with God for the accomplishment of His purposes. They are inducements which produce constant humility, watchfulness, and diligence. In the same way a parent, in order to get the willing co-operation of a child, may tell it to stay out of the way of an approaching automobile, when all the time the parent has no intention of ever letting the child get into a position where it would be injured. When God plies a soul with fears of falling it is by no means a proof that God in His secret purpose intends to permit him to fall. These fears may be the very means which God has designed to keep him from falling.


Does this make sense? Since christians know God has no intention of allowing the believer to actually fall away the scriptures that were meant to induce fear and obedience by suggesting that they can lose all weight.One of the big differences between Arminians who believe that true Christians can apostatize and Calvinists who don't, can be seen in a word picture: The Arminian is holding onto God's finger as they cross the busy street, the Calvinist's complete hand is being held inside the firm grip of God. In fact Jesus said, there are two hands that are on the child of God and both are impossible to get out of.

How often would our own foolish children kill themselves if we were not responsible parents. And yet...God is perfectly responsible.

[Ormly]

One of the big differences between Arminians who believe that true Christians can apostatize and Calvinists who don't, can be seen in a word picture: The Arminian is holding onto God's finger as they cross the busy street, the Calvinist's complete hand is being held inside the firm grip of God. In fact Jesus said, there are two hands that are on the child of God and both are impossible to get out of.

How often would our own foolish children kill themselves if we were not responsible parents. And yet...God is perfectly responsible.Scrap Lorraine Boettner. He never did anything other than support poor theology and waste a lot of paper in the task. How about you posting up some scripture to support your illfounded finger-hand hand idiotic analogy?

[Berean Todd]

Scrap Lorraine Boettner. He never did anything other than support poor theology and waste a lot of paper in the task. How about you posting up some scripture to support your illfounded finger-hand hand idiotic analogy?
Well, I'll tell you one thing Orm ... between you and Go, there is one person in this and other threads showing God's grace and willing to reasonably discuss topics, and one who seems to fly off the handle, have a temper, and none of God's grace ... if you really beleive in a lack of eternal security you might want to check where you're standing because you aren't showing much love or grace from what I've read here ...

[Ormly]

Well, I'll tell you one thing Orm ... between you and Go, there is one person in this and other threads showing God's grace and willing to reasonably discuss topics, and one who seems to fly off the handle, have a temper, and none of God's grace ... if you really beleive in a lack of eternal security you might want to check where you're standing because you aren't showing much love or grace from what I've read here ...
It's only emphasis, Todd, in the face of willful ignorance and mis-representation. I'm not mad.

Intellgient people are stupid for reasons and not from simple stupidity. Get my drift? -- Agenda motivates them, preventing them from rational thought if they are religious enough about their cult view. If they can't respond to the issues they've been persuaded to accept from their mentors as resolved they just stop responding out of lack. They have no more to give to it.

Sorry if I've offended you in anyway.:smile:

[GoBahnsen]

Scrap Lorraine Boettner. He never did anything other than support poor theology and waste a lot of paper in the task. How about you posting up some scripture to support your illfounded finger-hand hand idiotic analogy?I mentioned the text, but if you didn't know where it was here:Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Joh 10:28 And I give to them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.

Joh 10:29 My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

[Ormly]

I mentioned the text, but if you didn't know where it was here:Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Joh 10:28 And I give to them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.

Joh 10:29 My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Hebrews 6:4 (NASB-U)
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,

Hebrews 6:4 (GW)
Some people once had God's light. They experienced the heavenly gift and shared in the Holy Spirit. They experienced the goodness of God's word and the powers of the world to come. Yet, they have deserted {Christ}. They are crucifying the Son of God again and publicly disgracing him. Therefore, they cannot be led a second time to God.


Hmmm?

[GoBahnsen]

Hebrews 6:4 (NASB-U)
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,

Hebrews 6:4 (GW)
Some people once had God's light. They experienced the heavenly gift and shared in the Holy Spirit. They experienced the goodness of God's word and the powers of the world to come. Yet, they have deserted {Christ}. They are crucifying the Son of God again and publicly disgracing him. Therefore, they cannot be led a second time to God.


Hmmm?Well Orm, what have we here? I'm one who believes God saves a man to complete the work, not stop short of it. That God adopts a child to see him to glory, not lose him along the way. That God crosses the busy streets of life with the child's hand in His, not the child trying to hang on. That God Who begins a good work, will finish it as well.


The Hebrews 6 passage has been difficult for scholars for centuries. I take it that it hasn't become any less difficult today, or for those who know the Greek today. So what is the passage talking about? I think if we compare Scripture with Scripture, we must conclude that this is a warning passage, but that the true elect will heed the warning. That is...it is impossible for the elect to apostatize. If they could or should, what else would save them? There is no other plan of Salvation.


So Orm, rather than argue that the writer of Hebrews is talking about those who are not really Christian, I will agree that they are indeed believers he is addressing. He is warning them, because believers need warnings. We are still tempted in this world. We may have strong testimony in our hearts that God has saved us, yet we still get tempted. We stumble. But now unto Him who is able to keep us from falling!(Jude) Thank God for that. The elect may stumble, but they will not fall ultimately.


On the other hand, if one were to believe that people "decide" for Christ and this is what initiates their salvation, then I would go with your view and say that they can depart and be lost. But if God initiates, He doesn't fail in what He starts.

The theory is here in Hebrews, if a man were to leave Christ it would be impossible for him to be reclaimed, seeing how he is rejecting God's only appointed means of salvation.

True elect Christians will not do this. Others will. John speaks of those who started out with them and departed, showing they were never really of them. John doesn't say "Look out brethren, those guys were of us! and they left." No, he says they never were of us.



The Bottom line is, Christians still need to be warned. Why, I do not know, but God does, and so He warns us against departing from Christ. We had better pay attention, not because salvation can be lost, but because we can find out that we are lost. And for a person to ignore God, and think his salvation cannot be lost, is to be living in deception. Not in the possibility of actually losing real salvation, but in their thinking that they are really saved in the first place. In other words, if you won't heed God's warnings--- do not believe you have salvation. It's tricky to be sure, better we heed God's warnings. To not do so- is to not be working out our salvation- with fear and trembling.

[seer]

The Bottom line is, Christians still need to be warned. Why, I do not know, but God does, and so He warns us against departing from Christ. We had better pay attention, not because salvation can be lost, but because we can find out that we are lost. And for a person to ignore God, and think his salvation cannot be lost, is to be living in deception. Not in the possibility of actually losing real salvation, but in their thinking that they are really saved in the first place. In other words, if you won't heed God's warnings--- do not believe you have salvation. It's tricky to be sure, better we heed God's warnings. To not do so- is to not be working out our salvation- with fear and trembling.

Of course GB, that makes no sense. The warnings are unnecessary and even false if you are one of the elect, and completely unnecessary if you are not one of the elect.

But, Luke 8:13

"And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away."

They receive the word and BELIEVE for a while.

[Ormly]

Well Orm, what have we here? I'm one who believes God saves a man to complete the work, not stop short of it. That God adopts a child to see him to glory, not lose him along the way. That God crosses the busy streets of life with the child's hand in His, not the child trying to hang on. That God Who begins a good work, will finish it as well.Right from the git-go you prove yourself short on good understanding of the scriptures. God doesn't adopt children. He adopts sons. So salvation must mean more than just getting saved. --but lets see what else you got mixed up:


The Hebrews 6 passage has been difficult for scholars for centuries.Scholars, maybe. But not simpleminded folk like me who seek intimacy with the Father as TAUGHT in the scriptures and see this thing more than what your camp presents as fire insurance. After getting saved you can't seem to stop speaking of it as the ultimate of what the scriptures are about. That's wrong. There's much more and Calvin robs you of that urgency because of your need to defend his inaccurate salvic conclusions instead of getting on with becoming as God purposes for you.

I take it that it hasn't become any less difficult today, or for those who know the Greek today. So what is the passage talking about? I think if we compare Scripture with Scripture, we must conclude that this is a warning passage, but that the true elect will heed the warning.Where do you get notion except extra-biblical commentery? It's not saying that in the word so you are dragging into this your preconceived Calvinistic notions. If you are honest, you will see and admit that.

That is...it is impossible for the elect to apostatize.Why, except someone told you that and you believed them. We,ve been reading scripture that sez otherwise. Of course, the word 'elect' could mean something else, couldn't it? The word 'saint of God' could mean somethong else, couldn't it --- something more intimate? ------ "Few there be that find it". Think about that the next time you say "elect of God". Who are those few that Jesus speaks of except those who live the great commandment?

If they could or should, what else would save them? There is no other plan of Salvation.<Oh my! I just might not have anymore argument if he really believes that>

I'm sorry but I have to throw in a "DuH" here. So, DuH, why the need for a warning to the "elect"? Hmmm? The elect are the elect are they not?? They should either know better that they don't fall away OR God would forbid them in some way to fall away, RIGHT? So where in all this is the sovereign will of God, predestination, irresistable grace, etc, etc? No! A warning went out to born again, Spirit baptised, Tongues speaking, Holy Ghost, Pentecostal, normal Christians. They certainly were not Reformed or Calvinists of any part of the "tulip".

So Orm, rather than argue that the writer of Hebrews is talking about those who are not really Christian, I will agree that they are indeed believers he is addressing. He is warning them, because believers need warnings. We are still tempted in this world. We may have strong testimony in our hearts that God has saved us, yet we still get tempted. We stumble. But now unto Him who is able to keep us from falling!(Jude) Thank God for that. The elect may stumble, but they will not fall ultimately. On the other hand, if one were to believe that people "decide" for Christ and this is what initiates their salvation, then I would go with your view and say that they can depart and be lost. But if God initiates, He doesn't fail in what He starts.Dude, you need better theology. I do hope you read my other post where I inserted an Oswald Chambers daily reading from the net.

The theory is here in Hebrews, if a man were to leave Christ it would be impossible for him to be reclaimed, seeing how he is rejecting God's only appointed means of salvation.I don't see it as theory and you have to stretch real hard and force fit much scripture that your estimation be accurate and that at the expense of other sound doctrine that would otherwise bring rectification into your thinking.

True elect Christians will not do this. Others will. John speaks of those who started out with them and departed, showing they were never really of them. John doesn't say "Look out brethren, those guys were of us! and they left." No, he says they never were of us.But you can say that of me, can't you, and be totally wrong inasmuch as my love for Christ and intimacy with the Father, is concerned.. So your 20/20 hindsight with John won't cut the grass. I feel sure John saw in them other things that persuaded him he felt no need to elaborate on given he assumes we SHOULD already know certain things since he too was speaking to the born again, Spirit baptised, non-reformed, Pentecostal.. This is where your 5 points get dull.

The Bottom line is, Christians still need to be warned. Why, I do not know, but God does, and so He warns us against departing from Christ. We had better pay attention, not because salvation can be lost, but because we can find out that we are lost.Again. How does a Christian depart from Christ?? And then what?? Get saved again? How do you do that once you've already tasted of the heavenly gifts? And wouldn't it be better, if we are Christians to find out we are lost before we die? I mean That's the most stupid thing I believe you've ever posted! You can't possibly sort all that out in your head and continue to be a Calvinist.

And for a person to ignore God, and think his salvation cannot be lost, is to be living in deception. Not in the possibility of actually losing real salvation, but in their thinking that they are really saved in the first place. In other words, if you won't heed God's warnings--- do not believe you have salvation. It's tricky to be sure, better we heed God's warnings. To not do so- is to not be working out our salvation- with fear and trembling.Whoa! Where is YOUR Calvinistic notion of God's IRRESISTABLE grace in what you just said??? --not to mention any other of your 5 [now] dulled points. May I suggest that you learn how to rightly divide God's word without the help of others who can't see the wood for the trees. :eek:

:smile:

[Ormly]

The Bottom line is, Christians still need to be warned. Why, I do not know, but God does, and so He warns us against departing from Christ. We had better pay attention, not because salvation can be lost, but because we can find out that we are lost. And for a person to ignore God, and think his salvation cannot be lost, is to be living in deception. Not in the possibility of actually losing real salvation, but in their thinking that they are really saved in the first place. In other words, if you won't heed God's warnings--- do not believe you have salvation. It's tricky to be sure, better we heed God's warnings. To not do so- is to not be working out our salvation- with fear and trembling.

Of course GB, that makes no sense. The warnings are unnecessary and even false if you are one of the elect, and completely unnecessary if you are not one of the elect.

But, Luke 8:13

"And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away."

They receive the word and BELIEVE for a while.True. It's conversion without regeneration as O.C. states in his 01-10 daily reading; believing the report but going no further. Our churches are full every Sunday with these folk being preached to by ministers of like lack.

Orm

[Chappie]

The question you need to deal with, regardless of Dave Hunt's book, is whether or not Calvin followed the teaching of Christ (http://www.clicksor.com/search4.php?q=%3C%3F6YH%5BAC%2F%3D%60J%3DEE%7B%3C%60d%3F%25%24WH%3CJ%3DSC%3C%246AU%5B%7E0R%3ABwSCnH%3CJz+O%40%7E5%5BU%3D%25_R3_q5%28%24+%22%5B2%7C1l%2BR%3C%2C%3Ff%3C-%22HL%5D%28%21Q%60K%7BAY%26%2C%40%28Ucf%2F%7D%27O%5DDY%295Yy%21d%7B%2C%25Z%3D%5Ed%3E94ZdU%3D%25_R%3A_S%24h_3%21lU%5B%7E0R%28b%5BnW%2FhPHj%2F%27%3D%7C+m%7E%7E%27X6%7B-%40%2A%2B%5E%2A+EB%3B%5D%24H%3C2%28%3A%3C%23.%3Am%26.%40X+a%2F9%2FgN-p%60%21_%27Y%25+%26T%24h%287-l9.%24F%7E%7E%3CJ%7Cw%26H%22z%3EDHBH%3CI%23_%2FY%25+%26TDH%60%3CR%5E8%3A%26WH%3CIipw%7ChpdU%5B%7E0R%3ADU%5B%7E0R%2C%3E%3B_h%287-lSSC%3E%3CDP%27GKP.%40m%7E%7E%27X%2C%2C%3E%3B_h%287-lSSC%3E%3CDP%27ptP6%2C%7D%2C%3B_W%29%3A%60L%28%7CY%3B%3ACT%7D-W%7BAG%7DAI%7C%3D) in the fullest sense. If not, why not? I believe he compromised Christ to justify and thus prop up his own conceit in an effort to support an idea given him by his mentor, Augustine; "The City of God (http://www.clicksor.com/search4.php?q=%3C%3F6YH%5BAC%2F%3D%60J%3DEI%7C-Cd%3F%25%24WH%3CJ%3DSC%3Cct%2C%5D%7B%5DrfPH%7Dd%3E94ZJ8d%3D%2C%2AZ2u+%2B%3B%2B%7C0+9%7D%2CgkO%24%7CW%2FhR%3C%2C%3Ff%3C-%22HL%5D%28%21Q%60K%7BAY%26%2C%40%28Ucf%2F%7D%27O%5DEY%295Y3%40%3FYY%23%3A%7CT%7E%5EW0a%7C5%3AgY%25+%26T%2BW%3EcPHjSCn%2A%5BCB.h%257%5Bl8%3C%2A%5E.%25%3E%29.%7CF5%2A%7BJ%60w-4%3D%7D%3B%7Eh_3%21l%2Cd%3D%2C%2AZb%5Ds%2F%3B%3F%5Bm%26.%40X0a%279%5Bg%2C3.T%23%24%5BN%3Dp%3CJ%7Cu%60%7BAPJ%60D%26%3F%2Bm%26.%40X%7BAM%27U%7E%214%3FkJ%60DmepNjsYY%25+%26T%7E%60Y%25+%26T%3B%5D%23%3Fa%2 79%5BgWH%3CI%27GKB%3CDd%3B%25h%257%5Bl%3A%3B%5D%23%3Fa%279%5BgWH%3CI%27GKBemd8%3B%2B%3F5%24k%2B%7E%2FP%3A%7Bm%7E%7E%27X%5E%5Ek%3EDB%3C%5DBN%5B)". The thing that amazes me is his blindness to the teaching of the love of God. He minimises that part of God in favor of the emphasising the wrath of God, hence, the compeling of his followers to compel, by force, if necessary, 'to bring them in to 'his' church' -- and this based on a twisted verse of scripture.. Why do you believe non-Calvinists are looked upon as heretics by your camp? That is just another form of compeling only without the big stick or club that I've had expressed to me from some Calvinists on these forums who would gladly use it on me because of my "heresy". --- Real love of God there or serious wash of the brain in the effort to make hate be love in the persons thinking?

Please consider that Augustine was responsible for the Catholic inquistion and Calvin, the Geneva inquistion. Both killed people and thought they were doing God a favor, right? When considering all the injury they've done, how right can their views on the gospel be? Shouldn't you begin to question him instead of attacking those who question him from an honest heart or are you one of those who believes anyone who opposes Calvin can have an honest heart -- ergo, in your mind he is the gospel.

If given the same power as Calvin was given, many (not all) would do the same as Calvin did. (Geneva inquisition) And like Calvin, they would do it as a favor to God. When it comes to Calvinism, we are dealing with a predisposed mentality. This mentality is self evident on another board that I post on. Moderation is poor, so basically one can say whatever they choose. Reformed theology is a cult on that board, a bee hive of Calvinistic activity.

I know that this will not make me any Calvinistic friends, but if I said it any other way, it would be a lie....

Thank God that this is but one imperfect mans opinion. I pray that I am wrong.

Your evaluation is correct Ormly. A certain mentality is predisposed to Calvinism. It does not have it's foundations in love, but in God's wrath and God's supposed hate.

[rhutchin]

If given the same power as Calvin was given, many (not all) would do the same as Calvin did. (Geneva inquisition) And like Calvin, they would do it as a favor to God. When it comes to Calvinism, we are dealing with a predisposed mentality. This mentality is self evident on another board that I post on. Moderation is poor, so basically one can say whatever they choose. Reformed theology is a cult on that board, a bee hive of Calvinistic activity.

I know that this will not make me any Calvinistic friends, but if I said it any other way, it would be a lie....

Thank God that this is but one imperfect mans opinion. I pray that I am wrong.

Your evaluation is correct Ormly. A certain mentality is predisposed to Calvinism. It does not have it's foundations in love, but in God's wrath and God's supposed hate.

The issue in Geneva, as it is today, was to develop a system of laws by which people would live. In Geneva, they sought to live by God's decrees and declared it wrong and punishable to do otherwise. The direction of those desires was correct even if the implementation might have been off target.

Compare this to today. What if the US suddenly decided that it would live by God's decrees. As a consequence, the US passes laws based on the premise that both abortion and homosexuality are wrong. It would then be faced with identifying a punishment to be given to the doctor who performed an abortion. And to the mother who sought to abort her child. If a mother seeks to have her child murdered, is she to receive a death penalty? What about the priest who sexually abuses a young child. Should that priest be give a harsh penalty, even a death sentence, for such an act. The OT penalties were pretty strict. If the US of today sought to follow God, would it not have similar penalties? Was Geneva any less strict in its implementation of God's decrees than Israel was to be in following God's decrees?

[Ormly]

The issue in Geneva, as it is today, was to develop a system of laws by which people would live. In Geneva, they sought to live by God's decrees and declared it wrong and punishable to do otherwise. The direction of those desires was correct even if the implementation might have been off target.

Compare this to today. What if the US suddenly decided that it would live by God's decrees. As a consequence, the US passes laws based on the premise that both abortion and homosexuality are wrong. It would then be faced with identifying a punishment to be given to the doctor who performed an abortion. And to the mother who sought to abort her child. If a mother seeks to have her child murdered, is she to receive a death penalty? What about the priest who sexually abuses a young child. Should that priest be give a harsh penalty, even a death sentence, for such an act. The OT penalties were pretty strict. If the US of today sought to follow God, would it not have similar penalties? Was Geneva any less strict in its implementation of God's decrees than Israel was to be in following God's decrees?
If Calvin had taught the whole council of God he would succeeded. If he had taught the teachings of Jesus Christ as put forth in His sermon on the mount he would have turned the world on it's ear. But alas and alac, he didn't. What he taught was an extension of the catholic chruch that was responsible for the horror of the inquistion. Geneva was just another example of wrong teaching.
Odd but there was once in India a man who embraced one of the beatitudes and a whole nation responded while another was put to flight. I believe his name was "Gandhi"?:smile:

[Chappie]

The issue in Geneva, as it is today, was to develop a system of laws by which people would live. In Geneva, they sought to live by God's decrees and declared it wrong and punishable to do otherwise. The direction of those desires was correct even if the implementation might have been off target.

Compare this to today. What if the US suddenly decided that it would live by God's decrees. As a consequence, the US passes laws based on the premise that both abortion and homosexuality are wrong. It would then be faced with identifying a punishment to be given to the doctor who performed an abortion. And to the mother who sought to abort her child. If a mother seeks to have her child murdered, is she to receive a death penalty? What about the priest who sexually abuses a young child. Should that priest be give a harsh penalty, even a death sentence, for such an act. The OT penalties were pretty strict. If the US of today sought to follow God, would it not have similar penalties? Was Geneva any less strict in its implementation of God's decrees than Israel was to be in following God's decrees?

There is no excuse for Calvin's actions, especially in God's name. Because of pride amassed because of his ill gotten power; he began to think that he was more than God had called him to be. Men gave him the power of life and death over other men, and he became drunk with that power. He assumed the power of life and death over God's children: A power that God had not given him according to the word of the God that he presumed to serve..


24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Calvin’s theology served Calvin, and he did it in God's name. And even today, Calvinism serves the Calvinist. Hence that dreaded Calvinist cliché; "God in his mercy elected me, the others; they deserve to perish... There is a common mental thread that is indigenous to Calvinism, they worship power and sovereignty to the detriment of God's love. God's love is no longer agape. It is relegated to the role of selfishness and self serving. The object of God's affection becomes God himself: Even though love is essentially one beings effort to cause well-being for another being.

[GoBahnsen]

If Calvin had taught the whole council of God he would succeeded. If he had taught the teachings of Jesus Christ as put forth in His sermon on the mount he would have turned the world on it's ear. But alas and alac, he didn't. What he taught was an extension of the catholic chruch that was responsible for the horror of the inquistion. Geneva was just another example of wrong teaching.
Odd but there was once in India a man who embraced one of the beatitudes and a whole nation responded while another was put to flight. I believe his name was "Gandhi"?:smile: Yeah, tell us about the polytheistic pagan Gandhi, who many evangelicals think might have made it to heaven for being "sincere". That's quite revealing of your unorthodox position Orm.

While most evangelicals are ignorant of Calvin's writings, thinking he focused on Presdestination and reprobation. Yet it was Calvin's emphasis on "union with Christ" that was his major theme. Who can read the below passage out of Joel Beeke's Puritan Reformed Spirituality (page 2), and continue to proclaim this slander that Calvinism's "foundation is in God's wrath and God's supposed hate? Ormly and Chappie need to read Calvin for themselves instead of selected snippets by Arminians. Then they might be slower to reveal their ignorance about what the man taught.

But Calvinism is not about Calvin anyway, as much as it is about what Bible actually teaches. As when one man wanted to discuss Calvinism with a Calvinist, and when the Calvinist said "ok great, let's do it" then went a reaching for her Bible. At that gesture the other man responded: "no I don't want to discuss the Bible, but rather just Calvinism." To which the Calvinist' response was "well then, we have nothing to discuss." (The Calvinist was my Pastor's wife) As Spurgeon well understood, Calvinism is just a label for a sound Biblical systematic Theology. One might as well call it Pauline-ism.


"For Calvin, pietas designates the right attitude of man towards God.
This attitude includes true knowledge, heartfelt worship, saving faith,
filial fear, prayerful submission, and reverential love.5 Knowing who
and what God is (theology) embraces right attitudes toward Him and
doing what He wants (piety). In his first catechism, Calvin writes, "True
piety consists in a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as
it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and
dreads offending Him worse than death."6 In the Institutes, Calvin is
more succinct: "I call 'piety' that reverence joined with love of God
which the knowledge of his benefits induces."7 This love and reverence
for God is a necessary concomitant to any knowledge of Him and em-
braces all of life. As Calvin says, "The whole life of Christians ought to
be a sort of practice of godliness."8 Or, as the subtitle of the first edition
of the Institutes states, "Embracing almost the whole sum of piety &
whatever is necessary to know of the doctrine of salvation: A work most
worthy to be read by all persons zealous for piety."9


Calvin's commentaries also reflect the importance of pietas. For ex-
ample, he writes on 1 Timothy 4:7-8, "You will do the thing of greatest
value, if with all your zeal and ability you devote yourself to godliness
[pieto] alone. Godliness is the beginning, middle and end of Christian
living. Where it is complete, there is nothing lacking .... Thus the con-
clusion is that we should concentrate exclusively on godliness, for when
once we have attained to it. God requires no more of us."10 Comment-
ing on 2 Peter 1:3, he says, "As soon as he [Peter] has made mention of
life he immediately adds godliness [pietas} as if it were the soul of life."

[Ormly]

Yeah, tell us about the polytheistic pagan Gandhi, who many evangelicals think might have made it to heaven for being "sincere". That's quite revealing of your unorthodox position Orm.

I don't really care what he was, it's what he did and what principles and teachings of Christ he used to accomplish the thing. Care to stick that issue and not sidetrack it. Calvin used none of Christ' teaching on the sermon on the mount. Care to speak of that? How about making some distinctions here instead of protecting your pet doctrine at all cost to rational thought.

[Ormly]

Yeah, tell us about the polytheistic pagan Gandhi, who many evangelicals think might have made it to heaven for being "sincere". That's quite revealing of your unorthodox position Orm.

While most evangelicals are ignorant of Calvin's writings, thinking he focused on Presdestination and reprobation. Yet it was Calvin's emphasis on "union with Christ" that was his major theme. Who can read the below passage out of Joel Beeke's Puritan Reformed Spirituality (page 2), and continue to proclaim this slander that Calvinism's "foundation is in God's wrath and God's supposed hate? Ormly and Chappie need to read Calvin for themselves instead of selected snippets by Arminians. Then they might be slower to reveal their ignorance about what the man taught.

But Calvinism is not about Calvin anyway, as much as it is about what Bible actually teaches. As when one man wanted to discuss Calvinism with a Calvinist, and when the Calvinist said "ok great, let's do it" then went a reaching for her Bible. At that gesture the other man responded: "no I don't want to discuss the Bible, but rather just Calvinism." To which the Calvinist' response was "well then, we have nothing to discuss." (The Calvinist was my Pastor's wife) As Spurgeon well understood, Calvinism is just a label for a sound Biblical systematic Theology. One might as well call it Pauline-ism.


"For Calvin, pietas designates the right attitude of man towards God.
This attitude includes true knowledge, heartfelt worship, saving faith,
filial fear, prayerful submission, and reverential love.5 Knowing who
and what God is (theology) embraces right attitudes toward Him and
doing what He wants (piety). In his first catechism, Calvin writes, "True
piety consists in a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as
it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and
dreads offending Him worse than death."6 In the Institutes, Calvin is
more succinct: "I call 'piety' that reverence joined with love of God
which the knowledge of his benefits induces."7 This love and reverence
for God is a necessary concomitant to any knowledge of Him and em-
braces all of life. As Calvin says, "The whole life of Christians ought to
be a sort of practice of godliness."8 Or, as the subtitle of the first edition
of the Institutes states, "Embracing almost the whole sum of piety &
whatever is necessary to know of the doctrine of salvation: A work most
worthy to be read by all persons zealous for piety."9


Calvin's commentaries also reflect the importance of pietas. For ex-
ample, he writes on 1 Timothy 4:7-8, "You will do the thing of greatest
value, if with all your zeal and ability you devote yourself to godliness
[pieto] alone. Godliness is the beginning, middle and end of Christian
living. Where it is complete, there is nothing lacking .... Thus the con-
clusion is that we should concentrate exclusively on godliness, for when
once we have attained to it. God requires no more of us."10 Comment-
ing on 2 Peter 1:3, he says, "As soon as he [Peter] has made mention of
life he immediately adds godliness [pietas} as if it were the soul of life."


Sure --- and all from self-effort when you read the fine print of his thinking. In other words, works.

[Chappie]

While most evangelicals are ignorant of Calvin's writings, thinking he focused on Presdestination and reprobation. Yet it was Calvin's emphasis on "union with Christ" that was his major theme. Who can read the below passage out of Joel Beeke's Puritan Reformed Spirituality (page 2), and continue to proclaim this slander that Calvinism's "foundation is in God's wrath and God's supposed hate? Ormly and Chappie need to read Calvin for themselves instead of selected snippets by Arminians. Then they might be slower to reveal their ignorance about what the man taught.

Perhaps it is possible to have read Calvin and still disagree with him. Perhaps it is your ignorance of Scripture {Arminism} that causes you to enbrace such a gross error. Reformed theology slanders itself, it did not have to wait for Chappie to accomplish that.

But Calvinism is not about Calvin anyway, as much as it is about what Bible actually teaches.

Well I guess you're right. Calvinism is no longer about Calvin, it's all about the Calvinist, power & sovereignty. At this point they throw in God to add credibility...

As when one man wanted to discuss Calvinism with a Calvinist, and when the Calvinist said "ok great, let's do it" then went a reaching for her Bible. At that gesture the other man responded: "no I don't want to discuss the Bible, but rather just Calvinism." To which the Calvinist' response was "well then, we have nothing to discuss." (The Calvinist was my Pastor's wife) As Spurgeon well understood, Calvinism is just a label for a sound Biblical systematic Theology. One might as well call it Pauline-ism.

Your pastors wife is not the only one decieved by this theology. She means well. She has a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Anyway, give her a bible and she will immediately start to Calvinize it..... Spurgeon had no immunization against being deceived. Dropping his name will not add credibility to what is without credibility...

Might I have a foundational deffinition of the word "exegesis". It is not a biblical word, so a seculear deffinition will do... Please, just the diffinition gleaned from the dictionary. That will place all of us on a level playing field...

"For Calvin, pietas designates the right attitude of man towards God.
This attitude includes true knowledge, heartfelt worship, saving faith,
filial fear, prayerful submission, and reverential love.5 Knowing who
and what God is (theology) embraces right attitudes toward Him and
doing what He wants (piety). In his first catechism, Calvin writes, "True
piety consists in a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as
it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and
dreads offending Him worse than death."6 In the Institutes, Calvin is
more succinct: "I call 'piety' that reverence joined with love of God
which the knowledge of his benefits induces."7 This love and reverence
for God is a necessary concomitant to any knowledge of Him and em-
braces all of life. As Calvin says, "The whole life of Christians ought to
be a sort of practice of godliness."8 Or, as the subtitle of the first edition
of the Institutes states, "Embracing almost the whole sum of piety &
whatever is necessary to know of the doctrine of salvation: A work most
worthy to be read by all persons zealous for piety."9


Calvin's commentaries also reflect the importance of pietas. For ex-
ample, he writes on 1 Timothy 4:7-8, "You will do the thing of greatest
value, if with all your zeal and ability you devote yourself to godliness
[pieto] alone. Godliness is the beginning, middle and end of Christian
living. Where it is complete, there is nothing lacking .... Thus the con-
clusion is that we should concentrate exclusively on godliness, for when
once we have attained to it. God requires no more of us."10 Comment-
ing on 2 Peter 1:3, he says, "As soon as he [Peter] has made mention of
life he immediately adds godliness [pietas} as if it were the soul of life."



Calvin said many things that are scriptural, it is what he did to scripture to produce calvinism that so bothers me.... :eek:

[geoff]

I'm not a calvinist myself.. but I have to say.. GB has got you lot beat hands down. I've never read such a load of tripe.. Arminius is turning in his grave at the thought of it..

I remember reading Arminus' foreword on Calvin's commentary on Romans/Thessalonians. In summary it said "Although I disagree with His theology, I can not dispute the accuracy of his exegesis/commentary".

At Seminary I read a mountain of commentaries.. I still do.. (some people think its weird to read commentaries for fun, but hey...) - and quite frankly, Calvins commentaries from nearly 500 years ago are hard to beat - even with all the new discoveries and centuries of thinking, Calvin's exegetical work was and still is right up there.

So, while you might disagree with his theology, or rather, what you have been told his theology is and means (and GB is right, very selectively) - you CAN NOT say he abused scripture, certainly not any more than anyone else has. The fact that 500 years later biblical scholars have still not surpassed him counts for something.

You lot should really get your facts straight before you all go flying off halfcocked like this. Even after all the study and reading I've done, I'd think twice about it.

[Chappie]

I'm not a calvinist myself.. but I have to say.. GB has got you lot beat hands down. I've never read such a load of tripe.. Arminius is turning in his grave at the thought of it..

I remember reading Arminus' foreword on Calvin's commentary on Romans/Thessalonians. In summary it said "Although I disagree with His theology, I can not dispute the accuracy of his exegesis/commentary".

At Seminary I read a mountain of commentaries.. I still do.. (some people think its weird to read commentaries for fun, but hey...) - and quite frankly, Calvins commentaries from nearly 500 years ago are hard to beat - even with all the new discoveries and centuries of thinking, Calvin's exegetical work was and still is right up there.

So, while you might disagree with his theology, or rather, what you have been told his theology is and means (and GB is right, very selectively) - you CAN NOT say he abused scripture, certainly not any more than anyone else has. The fact that 500 years later biblical scholars have still not surpassed him counts for something.

You lot should really get your facts straight before you all go flying off halfcocked like this. Even after all the study and reading I've done, I'd think twice about it.

I believe that you said that something was wrong, but I never picked up on what it was..... Who says that biblical scholars still have not surpassed him. They are not trying to pass him, they are trying to tell him that he got this predestination, election, depravity, atonment thing all wrong...

Not a Calvinist huh?
Do you believe in salvational election/predestination?
Do you believe that God predestines/ordains all things down to the most minute detail. that includes both good and evil?
Do you believe that Christ died only for those predestined/ordained by God before the world was?
Do yu believe that God created a few men to love, and the multitude to hate and torment for eternity...
Do you believe that Adam's disobedience was ordained by God?

[geoff]

I believe that you said that something was wrong, but I never picked up on what it was..... Who says that biblical scholars still have not surpassed him. They are not trying to pass him, they are trying to tell him that he got this predestination, election, depravity, atonment thing all wrong...
You missed the point. Try reading with BOTH your eyes open.
I was talking about his exegetical/commentary skills, not how he systematized his theology.

Not a Calvinist huh?
Correct.
Do you believe in salvational election/predestination?
The bible teaches it.
Do you believe that God predestines/ordains all things down to the most minute detail. that includes both good and evil?
No.
Do you believe that Christ died only for those predestined/ordained by God before the world was?
The Bible teaches it.
Do yu believe that God created a few men to love, and the multitude to hate and torment for eternity...
What?
Do you believe that Adam's disobedience was ordained by God? No.

[Ormly]

You missed the point. Try reading with BOTH your eyes open.
I was talking about his exegetical/commentary skills, not how he systematized his theology.

His skills? He drew the wrong conclusions from what he studied! I'd say his skills were faulty at best, -- in fact, severely lacking. <sorry Chappie> :blush:

[lee_merrill]

Seer does raise a good point about the warning passages, if we know they can't possibly happen, how can we really fear these threats?

I tend to take the view that believers can experience some judgment after death, there are indications of this:

1 John 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.

That implies some pain…

Revelation 2:11 'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.'

This is addressed to believers, I think, and implies that those who do not overcome (sin, especially) may indeed be hurt some by the second death.

And in one of the main warning passages!

Hebrews 10:30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."

"His people" may indicate believers here, though there are indications both ways. But if it does mean believers, then again, (even severe) judgment may come to those who believe, but disobey. Like with the no-good servants in the parables, who are, quite possibly, real servants…

But I do believe that a real child of God is always being disciplined so that they will not be condemned, that we can't lose our salvation, the Holy Spirit is the guarantee, the earnest, and if the contract doesn't hold, the earnest is lost…

Blessings,
Lee

[geoff]

His skills? He drew the wrong conclusions from what he studied! I'd say his skills were faulty at best, -- in fact, severely lacking. <sorry Chappie> :blush:

From what I have read of your posts in this thread, you seem particularly underqualified to be a judge of his skills, or Arminus' for that matter.

[Chappie]

You missed the point. Try reading with BOTH your eyes open.
I was talking about his exegetical/commentary skills, not how he systematized his theology.

Why? You are working with both eyes closed. I did not want to take unfair advantage. Goba can explain if he chooses, but I do not see any scriptural exegesis in his post.

Doesn't matter that he is wrong, just as long as he properly systematizes. What's wrong got to do with it??? OoooooK..

The exegetical stuff (in boldface) looked like copy and past to me..

The bible teaches it.
The bible does not teach salvational predestination. Now I see why you think that I am blind...

I do not like labels, they are divisive. If you say that you are not a Calvinist, good enough for me..

[Chappie]

From what I have read of your posts in this thread, you seem particularly underqualified to be a judge of his skills, or Arminus' for that matter.

Try reading with one eye open, that should help. :wink:

[geoff]

Why? You are working with both eyes closed. I did not want to take unfair advantage. Goba can explain if he chooses, but I do not see any scriptural exegesis in his post.

I was talking about CALVIN...

Doesn't matter that he is wrong, just as long as he properly systematizes. What's wrong got to do with it??? OoooooK..
What? Make sense man.

The exegetical stuff (in boldface) looked like copy and past to me..
Again, I was talking about Calvin, what are you talking about?


The bible does not teach salvational predestination. Now I see why you think that I am blind...

So, where it talks about people being chosen to be saved, its not saying that at all? hmm nice one. I'm afraid I cant compete with that :sos:

I do not like labels, they are divisive. If you say that you are not a Calvinist, good enough for me..

Oh.. so why do you continue to talk to me as if I am a Calvinist?

Try reading with one eye open, that should help.

Great come back.. I'm devastated.

[Ormly]

Great come back.. I'm devastated.

He's just being generous. I'll withhold mine for now.

[Chappie]

Why? You are working with both eyes closed. I did not want to take unfair advantage. Goba can explain if he chooses, but I do not see any scriptural exegesis in his post.I was talking about CALVIN…

You may have been talking about Calvin in your head, but this is what you said… “I'm not a Calvinist myself.. but I have to say.. GB has got you lot beat hands down”. You made no reference to Calvin's exegetical skills..

The bible does not teach salvational predestination. Now I see why you think that I am blind…So, where it talks about people being chosen to be saved, its not saying that at all? hmm nice one. I'm afraid I cant compete with that

Where you “think” that the bible teaches personal election unto salvation is where your exegetical skills are deficient and your understanding has lead to some really bad conclusions….

Post your evidence if you like, but allow me to cross examine. I shall prove based upon a preponderance of the evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt that you are wrong. You are trying to prove your case based upon presuppositions and facts not in evidence…

The bible states that we are saved by grace (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?SearchType=AND&language=english&searchpage=0&search=saved%2C+grace%2C+faith&version=KJV) through faith. Not saved by election nor predestination..

[smaller]

The bible states that we are saved by grace through faith. Not saved by election nor predestination..

Uh, Chappie, Grace is Election and Predestination by God.

[Ormly]

Uh, Chappie, Grace is Election and Predestination by God.

Both recognized as something after the fact of receiving what God provided for all to embrace and not before. In other words the elect are those who receive from God by their choosing and then begin moving on in Him. Notice the words "might be" in Jn.3.17.

[smaller]

Both recognized as something after the fact of receiving what God provided for all to embrace and not before. In other words the elect are those who receive from God by their choosing and then begin moving on in Him. Notice the words "might be" in Jn.3.17.

U have a little contradiction on your hands there Ormly.

Grace is either from God or it is from Choice eh?

[Ormly]

U have a little contradiction on your hands there Ormly.

Grace is either from God or it is from Choice eh?
No contradiction here. Saving Grace is offered to all, everyone, that all might be saved by it. Not all will choose that offer. But that's still man's unimpeded choice, correct? It lines up with Jn 3.17.

[Chappie]

Uh, Chappie, Grace is Election and Predestination by God.

Are you saying that without (personal indiscriminate) election and predestination, God is without Grace. God's grace consists of election of whosoever believeth and their predestination of them to be conformed into the image of Christ. But his grace is not election and predestination, it consists of these things, but it is much, much more... His grace also consists of freewill.... :wink:

[smaller]

Are you saying that without (personal indiscriminate) election and predestination, God is without Grace.

Hey! How did your subjective opinions of election and predestination (God's Working) being personal indiscriminate creep in there???


God's grace consists of election

Uh, Chappie, this is a direct contradiction of your statement below saying one is not saved by election or predestination. IF Grace consists of "election" then you cannot separate it from salvation eh?


God's grace consists of election of whosoever believeth and their predestination of them to be conformed into the image of Christ. But his grace is not election and predestination, it consists of these things, but it is much, much more... His grace also consists of freewill.... :wink:

Now you know better than that Chappie. Grace being "freewill" is not commonly found on the shelf of scriptures. Mixing these drinks called mens will and God's Work will get you plastered..;) but of course these mixed drinks are commonly imbibed.

[smaller]

No contradiction here. Saving Grace is offered to all, everyone, that all might be saved by it. Not all will choose that offer. But that's still man's unimpeded choice, correct? It lines up with Jn 3.17.

Hey Ormly, how many coupons must I cash in to activate God's Grace or to make His Work and Word "effective" for me me me???

[Ormly]

Hey Ormly, how many coupons must I cash in to activate God's Grace or to make His Work and Word "effective" for me me me??
Gee, I don't know. Do they print them in Braille?

[Chappie]

Hey Ormly, how many coupons must I cash in to activate God's Grace or to make His Work and Word "effective" for me me me???

Just one Smaller, just one. God gave all men a cupon for faith, to make his grace effective for me, me, me; I need only present it for redemption........

[smaller]

Just one Smaller, just one. God gave all men a cupon for faith, to make his grace effective for me, me, me; I need only present it for redemption........

At least you read the point well Chappie. Men, in your equation, "activate God."

Now using your theological math here is the formula

(Grace+freewill) = 95-99% of humanity frying in fire forever

I'm sure you see the problem with that equation of Grace eh?

Grace = 95-99% of humanity frying in fire forever is really not a fair assessment of Grace.

[smaller]

Gee, I don't know. Do they print them in Braille?

And using Ormly math The Word Work and Will of God in Christ Jesus means NOTHING and is effective for NOTHING apart from men's activation of God's Word, Work, and Will.

When Paul said one is saved by Grace and this not of ourselves he did not mean some of ourselves.

Romans 4:4
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace

There are a couple of grace equations given by Paul in Romans 5 that renders your "grace activation principle" null and void.

"Where sin abounds, grace does MUCH MORE abound."

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Of course you use your freewill to vainly LIMIT God's Grace to others because your freewill cannot believe what is right in front of your eyes...You take God's Gift and and wrap it in your own little napkin and hide it so well that you think only a pathetic handful can actually find it and open it, like the gift does not exist except under your Christmas Tree.

go figure

[Chappie]

At least you read the point well Chappie. Men, in your equation, "activate God."

To activate, to initiate, to start... Need you to think a little bit here Mr. Smaller.. The activation started when God passed out the coupons, not when men presented them for redemption.... Now think.... Got it yet?

Now using your theological math here is the formula

(Grace+freewill) = 95-99% of humanity frying in fire forever

I'm sure you see the problem with that equation of Grace eh?

Grace = 95-99% of humanity frying in fire forever is really not a fair assessment of Grace.

If you start on the wrong foot, you will proceed on the wrong foot, and consequently you will end up on the wrong foot... You have committed all three errors.

Your formula is not valid nor relevant... It is based on man being the initiator; you failed to realize that God was the first to act, which consequently left man in a position of response only....

[Ormly]

Your formula is not valid nor relevant... It is based on man being the initiator; you failed to realize that God was the first to act, which consequently left man in a position of response only....People like smaller follow vain philosophies instead of the direct simplicity of the scriptures. What is amazing is, why? One thing I see in their philosophy is from Augustine who prayed something like: "Give what you command and command what you will". This stems from his thinking that mankind is nothing more than a "lump of sin", totally depraved.. Well, that's the way he thought it to be but what makes it good thinking in light of scripture that says otherwise except for man being unable to rectify Adam's transgression? God always provided a way for man to be justified and that by his faith which many set themselves to. That was His grace to man. There was always "light" in the darkness of this world man could readily access and God has always had a remnant revealing that to be so.
Calvin, being the good "Augustinian Catholic" he was, followed in his mentor's steps to further his principles being convinced he could make happen in Geneva what Augustine attempted to do in the whole of Europe. We know the outcome and we know that the outcome was because of his wrong doctrine based on Augustine's wrong persceptions.

[smaller]

To activate, to initiate, to start... Need you to think a little bit here Mr. Smaller.. The activation started when God passed out the coupons, not when men presented them for redemption.... Now think.... Got it yet?

My observations stands Chappie. God's Word, Work, and Will was effective and active without any man's activation, and this WW&W will remain so regardless of your "understandings" or lack thereof, of course.

I am not familiar with any redemption coupons that are held by men that need cashing in.

If you start on the wrong foot, you will proceed on the wrong foot, and consequently you will end up on the wrong foot... You have committed all three errors.

Well, before I start eliminating God's Word, Work, and Will based on some man's "choice" to activate it, I would probably want to first consider just how "effective" such a God is in the first place. It would appear He is quite helpless without "you" and perhaps not worthy of service eh?

Your formula is not valid nor relevant...

It's called simple math Chappie. When you connect God's Grace to "freewill" and the end result is eternal torture, then Grace IS eternal torture. There is no dodging the logic here, I don't care how long you went to school to learn otherwise.

It is based on man being the initiator; you failed to realize that God was the first to act, which consequently left man in a position of response only....

I used to make that argument as well Chappie, but God's effect stands apart from men's activation of God. Understanding is only reconciling oneself to a predetermined existing FACT. The Fact does not change in our "understanding" or "conceeding" of the FACT.

Jesus IS The Saviour of The World. Whether you see it that way or not is quite, well, what can I say? Irrelevant. He is what He is.

[Ormly]

It's called simple math Chappie. When you connect God's Grace to "freewill" and the end result is eternal torture, then Grace IS eternal torture. There is no dodging the logic here, I don't care how long you went to school to learn otherwise
How is it that you draw such harsh conclusions, smaller? Where is God's love in this as well as the record of God sudmitting to men many, many times, for their choosing, those things that would have saved them? I don't get it that you can simply ignore the record of this. But then you are a Calvinist, correct? <I forget> :ahem:

[smaller]

People like smaller follow vain philosophies instead of the direct simplicity of the scriptures.

You just can't seem to overcome the math eh Ormly? In your view freewill = eternal damnation. How free is it then? Not very eh?

What is amazing is, why?

Well there are those pesky little scriptures that say things like enemies of the Gospel are saved and, you know, stuff like that. So one has to question how "free" one's will is if they are saved even after dying an enemy of The Gospel. Looks like they might have been forced into Love against their "wills."

HA!

Romans 11:25-32 if you care to take a swing with the according miss that your freewill obtains on that subject alone.

In fact all your freewill has bought you is the elimination of God's Word, Work, and Will except by "your express authorization" of God. Otherwise your God just cannot "help" you.

He gives you a "chance" to "save yourself" from Him. What kind of dupe God is that anyway?

One thing I see in their philosophy is from Augustine who prayed something like: "Give what you command and command what you will". This stems from his thinking that mankind is nothing more than a "lump of sin", totally depraved.. Well, that's the way he thought it to be but what makes it good thinking in light of scripture that says otherwise except for man being unable to rectify Adam's transgression?

If your "freewill" saves you it certainly should be effective for the "eradication of sin" eh? But of course the "freewill" is just not that together. It can only take a swing at the salvation plate. It equates to throwing a 10,000 mph curveball at a blindman and expecting him to hit it, since only a pathetic few manage to "get lucky" and hit it.

So "freewill" is basically salvation by "luck."

God always provided a way for man to be justified and that by his faith which many set themselves to. That was His grace to man. There was always "light" in the darkness of this world man could readily access and God has always had a remnant revealing that to be so.

Yep. Poor Ol' God. Just sitting around waiting for someone to hit that pitch. Saw Whing batta batta batta....uh, no. You missed. Where is that trapdoor to the eternal fire??? What did I do with that button?

Calvin, being the good "Augustinian Catholic" he was, followed in his mentor's steps to further his principles being convinced he could make happen in Geneva what Augustine attempted to do in the whole of Europe. We know the outcome and we know that the outcome was because of his wrong doctrine based on Augustine's wrong persceptions.

Well, maybe some freewiller will buy your anti-Calvin rants, but I really agree with them on many subjects, including God's Total, Absolute, Complete, and Divine Sovereignty. Any other lesser God is one that is chiseld out of a mans head. An idol.

[Ormly]

You just can't seem to overcome the math eh Ormly? In your view freewill = eternal damnation. How free is it then? Not very eh?


Well there are those pesky little scriptures that say things like enemies of the Gospel are saved and, you know, stuff like that. So one has to question how "free" one's will is if they are saved even after dying an enemy of The Gospel. Looks like they might have been forced into Love against their "wills."

HA!

Romans 11:25-32 if you care to take a swing with the according miss that your freewill obtains on that subject alone.

In fact all your freewill has bought you is the elimination of God's Word, Work, and Will except by "your express authorization" of God. Otherwise your God just cannot "help" you.

He gives you a "chance" to "save yourself" from Him. What kind of dupe God is that anyway?


If your "freewill" saves you it certainly should be effective for the "eradication of sin" eh? But of course the "freewill" is just not that together. It can only take a swing at the salvation plate. It equates to throwing a 10,000 mph curveball at a blindman and expecting him to hit it, since only a pathetic few manage to "get lucky" and hit it.

So "freewill" is basically salvation by "luck."


Yep. Poor Ol' God. Just sitting around waiting for someone to hit that pitch. Saw Whing batta batta batta....uh, no. You missed. Where is that trapdoor to the eternal fire??? What did I do with that button?


Well, maybe some freewiller will buy your anti-Calvin rants, but I really agree with them on many subjects, including God's Total, Absolute, Complete, and Divine Sovereignty. Any other lesser God is one that is chiseld out of a mans head. An idol.Ya know, I think you are kid about 7-8 yrs old. Did you get permission to post on here from your mom? I'll bet you have your skate board tucked under your arm and your baseball cap is on backwards -- just wonna the boyz. <smaller? That fits>

[smaller]

Ya know, I think you are kid about 7-8 yrs old. Did you get permission to post on here from your mom? I'll bet you have your skate board tucked under your arm and your baseball cap is on backwards -- just wonna the boyz. <smaller? That fits>

Try to keep your accuser of others under wraps if your freewill can afford you to actually do so.

[Ormly]

Try to keep your accuser of others under wraps if your freewill can afford you to actually do so.But that's all part of freewill, smaller. I can choose, can't I?

[GoBahnsen]

Ahhhh...it's refreshing to see Egyptian against Egyptian.

[Chappie]

Well, maybe some freewiller will buy your anti-Calvin rants, but I really agree with them on many subjects, including God's Total, Absolute, Complete, and Divine Sovereignty. Any other lesser God is one that is chiseled out of a mans head. An idol.

If God has the sovereignty to allow man to choose, is he any less sovereign when man does so.

A sovereign God said, "Today I set before you both life and death, choose life that you may live. Downside, do not choose life, and you will die. This loss of sovereignty loss in the face of choice is ludicrous as Mike would say... Well, maybe some freewiller will buy your anti-Calvin rants, but I really agree with them on many subjects, including God's Total, Absolute, Complete, and Divine Sovereignty. Any other lesser God is one that is chiseled out of a mans head. An idol.

If God has the sovereignty to allow man to choose, is he any less sovereign when man does what he allows and even makes possible????.

A sovereign God said, "Today I set before you both life and death, choose life that you may live. Downside, do not choose life, and you will die. This loss of sovereignty loss in the face of choice is ludicrous as Mike would say...

Some things are so silly...

[smaller]

But that's all part of freewill, smaller. I can choose, can't I?

All things are of God directly or indirectly Ormly. I observe and write what I see.

[smaller]

If God has the sovereignty to allow man to choose, is he any less sovereign when man does so.

The math example given Chappie remains truth using your understanding. Grace results in eternal damnation. In any simpleton mind this IS NOT SO.

I would more equate your position with putting a 3 month old baby behind the wheel of a car and telling the baby to "go for it!" NO MAN is worthy to handle the issues of "eternity." Eternity is strictly God's Territory.

You "usurpers" who think you can march around and pronounce such things are the most deceived people on the planet, particularly when the result is to anothers eternal detriment.

If you want to make a measure, make a RIGHT eternal measure and that measure is love, as GOD IS LOVE. If you are wrong God will not burn you forever in fire for expressing LOVE, even in LIMITED FORM.


A sovereign God said, "Today I set before you both life and death, choose life that you may live.

I have heard "freewillers" cite this text for years to justify the condemnation of their neighbors to burn forever in fire.

First of all the text is not associated in ANY WAY with "eternal consequences."

Secondly, do you "really" think "death" was a valid "choice?" come on.

Downside, do not choose life, and you will die.

You do understand there is a difference between eternal consequences and temporal consequences?

This loss of sovereignty loss in the face of choice is ludicrous as Mike would say...

I don't have a problem with "limited choice" Chappie, but of course "limited" is not "free." I know the extent of "my influences" end at the tips of my fingers.

If God has the sovereignty to allow man to choose, is he any less sovereign when man does what he allows and even makes possible????.

Oh puhleese Chappie. Would anyone in their "right mind" choose to be burned alive forever in fire. I am sorry but such a "choice" is not granted to any named person in the entire text of the Bible. Give it a rest.


A sovereign God said, "Today I set before you both life and death, choose life that you may live. Downside, do not choose life, and you will die. This loss of sovereignty loss in the face of choice is ludicrous as Mike would say...

Some things are so silly...

I am willing to say that this ridiculous eternal judgment mindset is so locked into the system AND that it suits the manipulation of people who "make their living at it" that most will never let go of it. They are rapt with the eternal judgment of other peoples souls to damnation. I would not touch that Judgement Seat with a ten foot pole, nor would I desire to see such a thing vaunted upon another person for any reason.

So is it possible that I am nicer than God?

Nope.

An even simpler observation Chappie. God is love. You are not. You reek in the judgment of others and call it that way in the name of Love. I see through your robes my friend. They are quite filthy.

[Ormly]

You "usurpers" who think you can march around and pronounce such things are the most deceived people on the planet, particularly when the result is to anothers eternal detriment.



What other's? Of the elect - or of the non-elect? If the elect will it matter? How so? If the non-elect, who cares? That is a correct way to look at things isn't it or is a wrong way?

I predict that the answer will be predictable.:ahem:

[smaller]

What other's? Of the elect - or of the non-elect? If the elect will it matter? How so? If the non-elect, who cares? That is a correct way to look at things isn't it or is a wrong way?

There are things that will be eternally judged and set aside. The Word does not extend eternal judgment unto damnation to any named individuals of humanity, but is very clear on the permanent eradication of the spirit(s) of the anti-Christ.

The difficult part of judgment Ormly is that these (anti)spirits dwell in the flesh of mankind. ALL of mankind. Sin is of the devil and ALL have sinned and HAVE sin.

As such NO MAN is fit to eternally judge his NEIGHBOR to ETERNAL TORTURE. It is NOT POSSIBLE.

I predict that the answer will be predictable.:ahem:

"and they repented not to give HIM the glory."

Is is remotely possible that God AS LOVE may just be a LITTLE GREATER than you think Ormly?

I am willing to say that if God has elected you to be the bearer of the greatest sin and hatred that one person can measure to another, and THAT THING(s) in you will be judged and set aside.

You, as a Child of God will GO FREE OF IT. Your body will have served it's purpose in the JUDGMENT OF THOSE THINGS IN IT in preparation for permanent eradication.

In the meantime I make my appeal to God IN TRUTH for YOU. If He elects, you WILL LOVE, as Jesus loved and IS LOVE.

If not, you are and remain the "property" of the accuser of others.

[Ormly]

There are things that will be eternally judged and set aside. The Word does not extend eternal judgment unto damnation to any named individuals of humanity, but is very clear on the permanent eradication of the spirit(s) of the anti-Christ.

The difficult part of judgment Ormly is that these (anti)spirits dwell in the flesh of mankind. ALL of mankind. Sin is of the devil and ALL have sinned and HAVE sin.

As such NO MAN is fit to eternally judge his NEIGHBOR to ETERNAL TORTURE. It is NOT POSSIBLE.
And who is declaring you wrong in this judgement issue, me?!!

As to you (anti)spirits issue --- you are bogus. You are confusion the "flesh" with Satan who is outside you not in you as you suppose. The flesh is capable of choosing. Choose wisely between life and death.

"and they repented not to give HIM the glory."

Whoa Horsy!! Whatta mean repent? How can one do that if he can't choose??

Is is remotely possible that God AS LOVE may just be a LITTLE GREATER than you think Ormly?
Certainly greater than you think. You need to think this through further.


I am willing to say that if God has elected you to be the bearer of the greatest sin and hatred that one person can measure to another, and THAT THING(s) in you will be judged and set aside.

You, as a Child of God will GO FREE OF IT. Your body will have served it's purpose in the JUDGMENT OF THOSE THINGS IN IT in preparation for permanent eradication.

Huh?? What book you reading? You sniffin sumthin?

In the meantime I make my appeal to God IN TRUTH for YOU. If He elects, you WILL LOVE, as Jesus loved and IS LOVE.

If not, you are and remain the "property" of the accuser of others.
Spare me your prayers --- I'm choosy in that department.

[smaller]

And who is declaring you wrong in this judgement issue, me?!!

Are you kidding me? You judge others eternally and perpetually to be either burned or annihilated based on what you THINK you see in the scriptures.

As to you (anti)spirits issue --- you are bogus.

I can state with scriptural authority that ANTI LIFE will not exist WITH Eternal Love. This much is CERTAIN.

You are confusion the "flesh" with Satan who is outside you not in you as you suppose.

The flesh is merely a compilation of organic matter. It has no "brain." Satan and his messengers dwell, without A DOUBT, in the flesh of mankind. This does not make mankind the same as them.

The flesh is capable of choosing.

My prior observation of the flesh will stand.

Choose wisely between life and death.

We are all given a choice TO LOVE. Those who do not are captives of darkness. You are and remain such a captive. As such I measure you as a slave, and feel sorry for you. Jesus did not come to condemn captives of darkness, but to FREE THEM IN AND AS LOVE. get it?

Whoa Horsy!! Whatta mean repent? How can one do that if he can't choose??

I am saying that there is an impetus IN YOU that is NOT YOU, but who CONTROLS YOUR FLESH. Paul did not deny that in his flesh he SERVED THE LAW OF SIN. In other words, whenever Paul picked up The Law, SIN WAS REVEALED IN HIM. He called this condition of sin NO LONGER I. That is what Paul was shown. He "overcame" by and through Love.

Certainly greater than you think. You need to think this through further.

You sit in God's Seat everyday, declaring yourself AS GOD. I just say it is not you, but that which sits in your temple, your BODY, parading and masquerading as GOD. God can AND WILL DESTROY that usurper.

Huh?? What book you reading? You sniffin sumthin?

I don't expect you to see Ormly. I do enjoy tormenting that thing that is IN YOU that does such things and I enjoy THE REVEALING of it IN YOU.

Spare me your prayers --- I'm choosy in that department.

I will never say you are permanently lost Ormly. You know that.

[Ormly]

Are you kidding me? You judge others eternally and perpetually to be either burned or annihilated based on what you THINK you see in the scriptures.Spell it out!! Where Have I judged anyone? Need I tell you that you are the one doing the judging here?

I can state with scriptural authority that ANTI LIFE will not exist WITH Eternal Love. This much is CERTAIN.
Big deal! What's new? Anti-life is just another way of stating "Sin". Bet you didn't know that. Bet you didn't know that I knew that.

The flesh is merely a compilation of organic matter. It has no "brain." Satan and his messengers dwell, without A DOUBT, in the flesh of mankind.Send all that to the moon. In other words, pack it in.
This does not make mankind the same as them.Really?? And I guess you can easily explain all that to us? <but please don't>
My prior observation of the flesh will stand.Your observation is no observation stemming from knowledge.

We are all given a choice TO LOVE. Those who do not are captives of darkness. You are and remain such a captive. As such I measure you as a slave, and feel sorry for you. Jesus did not come to condemn captives of darkness, but to FREE THEM IN AND AS LOVE. get it?
There you go with that choice thing again as well judging. I thought we didn't have any and I was the one doing the judging?

I am saying that there is an impetus IN YOU that is NOT YOU, but who CONTROLS YOUR FLESH. Paul did not deny that in his flesh he SERVED THE LAW OF SIN. In other words, whenever Paul picked up The Law, SIN WAS REVEALED IN HIM. He called this condition of sin NO LONGER I. That is what Paul was shown. He "overcame" by and through Love.
Impetus, shimpetus -- bildge! I now control my flesh because if I don't there is nothing I need to overcome, is there? Jesus overcame the adversary of the flesh. Paul was freed -- So am I to the degree of my love is to the Father. How's that for a twist on what you maybe would like to say?. Now lets get on with the clean up left behind by the deeds of the flesh that my soul be purified and made acceptable in the beloved. See chap.1 of 1Pet.]

You sit in God's Seat everyday, declaring yourself AS GOD. I just say it is not you, but that which sits in your temple, your BODY, parading and masquerading as GOD. God can AND WILL DESTROY that usurper.
Bildge! You speak as a cult.

I don't expect you to see Ormly. I do enjoy tormenting that thing that is IN YOU that does such things and I enjoy THE REVEALING of it IN YOU.
That speaks of Love to be sure, eh? But tormenting me? Naah! This is just good excercise.
I will never say you are permanently lost Ormly. You know that.
Well, maybe you'd say I'm just somewhat lost. right? A little bit maybe?:ahem:

[smaller]

Spell it out!! Where Have I judged anyone? Need I tell you that you are the one doing the judging here?

Puhleese. You reek with the eternal damnation of others for what is also in you. Don't EVEN try to deny it. That same judgment controls your nearly every thought.

I can state with scriptural authority that ANTI LIFE will not exist WITH Eternal Love. This much is CERTAIN.

Big deal! What's new? Anti-life is just another way of stating "Sin". Bet you didn't know that. Bet you didn't know that I knew that.

It is a big deal Ormly. The judgment of the anti-life to eternal departure is the culmination of all of human existence. You however have falsely applied what is due to that spirit (which is not a spirit, but a temporal working) and APPLIED IT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.

The flesh is merely a compilation of organic matter. It has no "brain." Satan and his messengers dwell, without A DOUBT, in the flesh of mankind.

Send all that to the moon. In other words, pack it in.

Your "flesh" has no mind Ormly, so you can pack whatever you want into it. It will not arrive with it's own thoughts.

This does not make mankind the same as them. (that which dwells in the flesh

Really?? And I guess you can easily explain all that to us? <but please don't>

Paul already did when he described the sin that indwelt him as "NO LONGER I."

But of course that is too simple for you. You will prefer to remain locked into the judgment of others because that is what your controller has coming to it. IT is the voice that speaks from your body.

My prior observation of the flesh will stand.

Your observation is no observation stemming from knowledge.

Well, you see Ormly. You want to BLAME. You want to blame the flesh for sin, and you want to blame people for sin and you want to blame the carnal nature for sin, and you want to blame the Adamic nature for sin. The fact of the matter will remain that sin is of the devil and mankind is the carrier of it INCLUDING you.

We are all given a choice TO LOVE. Those who do not are captives of darkness. You are and remain such a captive. As such I measure you as a slave, and feel sorry for you. Jesus did not come to condemn captives of darkness, but to FREE THEM IN AND AS LOVE. get it?

There you go with that choice thing again as well judging. I thought we didn't have any and I was the one doing the judging?

Limited love and limited choice is what either will remain. Only God is PERFECT LOVE and only God will make ETERNAL JUDGMENT of others. He will have mercy upon ALL. (Romans 11:32

I am saying that there is an impetus IN YOU that is NOT YOU, but who CONTROLS YOUR FLESH. Paul did not deny that in his flesh he SERVED THE LAW OF SIN. In other words, whenever Paul picked up The Law, SIN WAS REVEALED IN HIM. He called this condition of sin NO LONGER I. That is what Paul was shown. He "overcame" by and through Love.

Impetus, shimpetus -- bildge! I now control my flesh because if I don't there is nothing I need to overcome, is there?

I see. And this means you have no sin? lol. A man who carries SIN INDWELLING is not equipped to judge another man to burn in fire forever for THE SAME THING.

Jesus overcame the adversary of the flesh.

Satan had NOTHING, no thing, in Jesus Ormly. He does not attribute the work of the workers of iniquity to MANKIND, and that is what He showed at the CROSS. He did not buy what you have bought.

Paul was freed --

Paul had a messenger of satan that was SENT BY GOD to torment him. Paul did not deny he had sin that indwelt him. Truth set Paul free just like Truth sets all captives FREE. That does not mean that they will not remain captives as long as the flesh is still (temporarily) alive.

So am I to the degree of my love is to the Father. How's that for a twist on what you maybe would like to say?. Now lets get on with the clean up left behind by the deeds of the flesh that my soul be purified and made acceptable in the beloved. See chap.1 of 1Pet.]

You can make your flesh as clean as you want Ormly, but I know if I scratch it that sin comes out as the eternal judgment of other people that lives in you. That is your particular expression of it, and it is the worst possible sin that a person can have. The measure of eternal torture to another person who is made in God's Image is the greatest hatred and the greatest sin that is available on the face of the planet, and YOU have it.

You sit in God's Seat everyday, declaring yourself AS GOD. I just say it is not you, but that which sits in your temple, your BODY, parading and masquerading as GOD. God can AND WILL DESTROY that usurper.

Bildge! You speak as a cult.

The MORE The Word speaks to you in this way the WORSE you shall become. That is a natural reaction of the anti-LIFE to the WORD of LIFE. They get further and further apart until one of them disappears and is engulfed by THE WORD OF LIFE.

I don't expect you to see Ormly. I do enjoy tormenting that thing that is IN YOU that does such things and I enjoy THE REVEALING of it IN YOU.

That speaks of Love to be sure, eh? But tormenting me? Naah! This is just good excercise.

The fact remains that you are marked as a man locked into the eternal judgment of others.

I will never say you are permanently lost Ormly. You know that.

Well, maybe you'd say I'm just somewhat lost. right? A little bit maybe?

That which resides in you that is THAT GREATEST SIN has been judged and condemned already. We all await their final execution.

enjoy!

smaller

[Ormly]

..... I think you're daffed as other cultists are.

'nough. Don't bother responding for a further response from me. There will be none so you can have the last word --- if you think you need to and I'm sure you do.

[smaller]

..... I think you're daffed as other cultists are.

'nough. Don't bother responding for a further response from me. There will be none so you can have the last word --- if you think you need to and I'm sure you do.

I belong to no organization of men so, no, your "cult" accusation ain't gonna get you off the hook either.

Why is it that whenever you get boxed in your try this garbage to get you out? Not only with me, but with others.

Hello....

[Chappie]

An even simpler observation Chappie. God is love. You are not. You reek in the judgment of others and call it that way in the name of Love. I see through your robes my friend. They are quite filthy.

Ouch!!!!
When I considered the source, I decided not to retaliate...

[smaller]

Ouch!!!!
When I considered the source, I decided not to retaliate...

I am sure you will receive your eternal reward for "your works." lol

[Chappie]

I am sure you will receive your eternal reward for "your works." lol

Thank you Mr. Smaller. I'm sure that you will get yours too... Nothing to lol about...

[smaller]

Thank you Mr. Smaller. I'm sure that you will get yours too... Nothing to lol about...

Yes, your proclaimation and reflection of Love has indeed been impressive...

uh, not.

My math equation remains, as well as a plethora of other unaddressed details.

There seems to be a general drift here to flee from contradictions to ones doctrinal positions when compared to Word conflicts, and to couch ones eternal judgment of others behind educated robes.

It's not a new thing Chappie.