Frustration over debate about Calvinism

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
If it were not for God's election of some to salvation no one would be saved. I quote John Dagg once again:

“Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible.”

How do you explain the many different religions around the world, all believing/worshipping some type of god??

It's seems to me if man can, on his own, chose to believe/worship one god he can chose to believe/worship any god.

I invite you to read the 1st chapter of Romans. Also note the following by the Prophet Isaiah:

Isaiah 44:15-20
15 Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
16 He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
18 They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
19 And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
20 He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?

And isn't the message of Jesus to believe/worship the one "TRUE GOD"???

That is correct but people will not choose to worship the one true God unless He gives them the desire through regeneration. That is the point Dagg is making in the quote. Fallen man will make his own god as shown in the above passage from Isaiah and as Paul teaches in Romans 1.

Man must "BELIEVE" in God before salvation is possible,

Man must be chosen by God before salvation is possible!

Grace doesn't arrive except after Faith.

A few simple questions.
1. After Adam and Eve sinned what did they do? They attempted to make a covering for their sin from fig leaves! That is what fallen man attempts to do. Then they tried to hide from God!
2. What did God do? He sought out Adam and Eve and made atonement for their sin. He shed the blood of an animal to make a covering of skin, an atonement, for their nakedness, their sin. That is the Grace of God in action.

Now please tell me where faith is manifested by Adam and Eve before the grace of God is shown?

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it (grace) is the gift of God:

You have corrupted the passage above with your additions. The passage actually states:

Ephesians 2:8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

This passage correctly presented shows that faith is the gift of God. It is disingenuous of you to add to the Word of God. If you want to comment and give your incorrect views that is different

One of the big problems with most doctrine, the "evidence" of their truth isn't manifested here in the "real world".

I assume you are speaking of your own confusion.

 

[Me4Him]

You have corrupted the passage above with your additions. The passage actually states:

Ephesians 2:8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

This passage correctly presented shows that faith is the gift of God. It is disingenuous of you to add to the Word of God. If you want to comment and give your incorrect views that is different

Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life

Grace comes "THROUGH" faith, no faith, no means for Grace getting "THROUGH".

Do you have that much trouble understanding the meaning/sentence structure with other documents,

Or is it just the Bible???

BTW, you're not the only one who does this.

 

[OldRegular]

Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life

Where is faith mentioned in the above passage? Salvation is a GIFT and purely by grace, as the above passage shows.

Grace comes "THROUGH" faith, no faith, no means for Grace getting "THROUGH".

Justification comes through faith. Grace is unmerited favor. You are like many who believe that God can't do it by Himself. He needs a little, or a lot, of help depending on the arrogance of the individual.

Do you have that much trouble understanding the meaning/sentence structure with other documents,

Or is it just the Bible???

Not nearly as much as you do!

BTW, you're not the only one who does this.

I know! You get the Grand Prize!

 

[Winman]

Not to take sides here, but the promise came to Adam and Eve before God made the coats of skins. And the promise was believed.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is the first promise of the saviour to come, Jesus Christ.

And we know they believed the promise, because Eve believed Cain to be this saviour.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Eve was mistaken here, not realizing the child was from Adam, but nevertheless she believed God's promise in Gen 3:15

It was after the promise that God made the coats.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

The promise was made to Adam and Eve when they were insufficiently covered with the fig leaves. After believeing the promise of a saviour could God cover them properly.

 

[Me4Him]

Where is faith mentioned in the above passage? Salvation is a GIFT and purely by grace, as the above passage shows.

Justification comes through faith. Grace is unmerited favor.

You still don't "get it".

Ga 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it (his Faith) was accounted to him for righteousness. (Justification)

Ro 5:1 Therefore being justified by (OUR) faith, we have peace with God

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned

 

[Me4Him]

Not to take sides here, but the promise came to Adam and Eve before God made the coats of skins. And the promise was believed.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is the first promise of the saviour to come, Jesus Christ.

And we know they believed the promise, because Eve believed Cain to be this saviour.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Eve was mistaken here, not realizing the child was from Adam, but nevertheless she believed God's promise in Gen 3:15

It was after the promise that God made the coats.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

The promise was made to Adam and Eve when they were insufficiently covered with the fig leaves. After believeing the promise of a saviour could God cover them properly.

I read "somwhere" that "Cain" in Hebrew meant "He has come",

Referring to Eve's belief of Cain being the Messiah.

Of course Israel will accept a man born by the will of "flesh and blood" as the Messiah, the antichrist,

instead of born by the spirit.

 

[OldRegular]

Not to take sides here, but the promise came to Adam and Eve before God made the coats of skins. And the promise was believed.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is the first promise of the saviour to come, Jesus Christ.

And we know they believed the promise, because Eve believed Cain to be this saviour.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Eve was mistaken here, not realizing the child was from Adam, but nevertheless she believed God's promise in Gen 3:15

It was after the promise that God made the coats.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

The promise was made to Adam and Eve when they were insufficiently covered with the fig leaves. After believeing the promise of a saviour could God cover them properly.

Show by Scripture between Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 3:21 where it states that Adam and Eve believed. In case you are not aware verse 4:1 is after the verse where God slaughtered the animal! Furthermore you cannot read verse 4:1 and conclude that Eve did not know the child was Adam's; that is unless you want to practice your eisegesis.

The Grace of God was demonstrated first when God sought out Adam and Eve!

 

[Rippon]

Ok, one last time..

Not quite.

See, you're STILL twisting what was said into something else.

The master manipulator trying to defend his actions.

Both authors agreed that both their lists were saying the same things and both authors are well known and respected Calvinists who (through various mediums) defend the Reformed position and it's beliefs. They said it, not me. So deal with them on the issue,

An actual reading of the content of both lists will disabuse one of the myth that both lists are describing the same thing.

I mearly (sic)gave an account of what is considered by other Calvinists a couple of listings as to what views fall under the Hyper views and even other Cals on the BB voiced their agreements as well (with the exception of JD who shares your views)

One list was substandard (P.J's) and the other was legit (Monergism's).

It was their lists and their statements that say they both as saying the same things.

Have you ever considered taking an ESL course?

Yes, men do have such opinions on it.

I had said:"Real Calvinism is biblical. Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism are sub-biblical."

Well, do you differ with that? Do you think that both are biblical -- or that one is?

I stated I was not stating anything about Ellis being hyper nor was I bad mouthing him.

You compared his views to Mormons who wish to be grouped within Christianity! I certainly think that constitutes bad-mouthing.

James Ellis had said:"...honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate varieties within Calvinism as 'Hyper-Calvinism'."

You thought his view was wrong and went on to say that he was aberrant and shouldn't have a right to say that since he was within the group and had no say-so to set any standards. Yes, that was indeed a lot of bad-mouthing on your part.

It is so ironic that you as a non-Calvinist are trying to pigeon-hole me as a H-C. You object to Calvinism proper yet think you can determine what H-C is and call others that name with impunity. Your views are just as theologically unscriptural as a real H-C -- just on the other side of the ledger.

 

[Allan]

One list was substandard (P.J's) and the other was legit (Monergism's).

And yet Monergism states Phil Johnsons's list is saying exactly the same things. Looks like 'they' disagree with you.

You compared his views to Mormons who wish to be grouped within Christianity! I certainly think that constitutes bad-mouthing.

No, that is you twisting things again. I never compared his views to Mormons. Try agian

You thought his view was wrong and went on to say that he was aberrant and shouldn't have a right to say that since he was within the group and had no say-so to set any standards. Yes, that was indeed a lot of bad-mouthing on your part.

No I didn't, not even close. Go back and read it again.
Either you have as serious disfunction with comprehension or you just willfully make stuff up as you go along. Try again

You object to Calvinism proper yet think you can determine what H-C is and call others that name with impunity.

Again, Try again. If you have a problem with what constitutes HC views speak to those of YOUR OWN VIEW who made the statements. I didn't determine it - they did. I didn't call you an HC, I simply acknowledged your own statements about where you were within the list. Also since they do know more than me or you on the subject I will defer to them :thumbs:

 

[Jarthur001]

Why not, it's true. What part are you questioning?? :type:

I'm not questioning the statement because i believe it is wrong, but for other reasons.

Can you give me a list of groups that are non Calvinist and not Arminian?


BTW....About 6 months ago you said you were going to give a list of books for me to read, that held to the same view of election as you. Any luck with that?

Also you said "Many schools that you knew of" also tought your views.

One of them was the college you went too...if I recall right. Can I have a list of those schools?

 

[Allan]

I'm not questioning the statement because i believe it is wrong, but for other reasons.

Then why the question of 'why' to my post???

Can you give me a list of groups that are non Calvinist and not Arminian?

Sure, almost every non-cal. I say almost because there are actually a few who use the label even because they don't like the bagage that goes with in discussion.

You do understand what makes a person Arminian is the same as what makes them Calvinist, don't you? Holding to 5 basic views of that system.

How many of the 5 basic points can one hold to before the not considered a Calvinist? The same is true for an Arminian.

BTW....About 6 months ago you said you were going to give a list of books for me to read, that held to the same view of election as you. Any luck with that?

Also you said "Many schools that you knew of" also tought your views.

One of them was the college you went too...if I recall right. Can I have a list of those schools?

As to the rest.. Your wrong. This is what I stated with respect to your request for a list of books and my school that taught it:

I'll have to look. I have never read it in a book (never said I did either - FTR). As I said it was something most of the preachers I know believed and other non-cals I met and in school. I'll look for something on it.

And that view is specifically this which we were talking about (my view of election)

The election of certain individuals is based on God's decree/decision to save by grace through faith. It is no simplier than that - IOW, The moment He determined 'how' He would save, He also knew 'whom' He would save. Thus it is God who determined whom He will save. The previous statement is based upon His decree to save by grace through faith, which man had no say in.

If you can't understand that I really can't help you. I have not really looked much into books (very little actually) because I have other things more important occupying my time and it was placed on the back burner for a while.


Also I never stated anything about schools teaching my view or not. I never did a class on election nor one the centered around the concept other than the declarion of our election, but not the presumed process of it.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Just checking this out to see if anyone has changed anyone else's mind? :wavey:

Didn't think so.:laugh:

 

[Jarthur001]

Then why the question of 'why' to my post???

Hang in there....

Sure, almost every non-cal. I say almost because there are actually a few who use the label even because they don't like the bagage that goes with in discussion.

You do understand what makes a person Arminian is the same as what makes them Calvinist, don't you? Holding to 5 basic views of that system.

How many of the 5 basic points can one hold to before the not considered a Calvinist? The same is true for an Arminian.

I was more looking for a list.

Like going by Wiki the following denominations are Arminian.

Anabaptist
Amish
Brethren
Methodist
Holiness churches
Nazarene
The Salvation Army
Pentecostal
Assemblies
Church of God in Christ
Pillar of Fire
Universal Church of the Kingdom of God
American Baptist Association
Free Will Baptist
General Association of General Baptists
General Six-Principle Baptists
Association of General Baptists
Missionary Baptists
Remonstrant Brotherhood
Remonstrants
Mennonites
Quakers

Now there are more we can add to this list.

But I want to see a list of non-Calvinist groups that are "more in line with scripture" as you see it.

As to the rest.. Your wrong. This is what I stated:

And that view is specifically this which we were talking about (my view of election)

The election of certain individuals is based on God's decree/decision to save by grace through faith. It is no simplier than that - IOW, The moment He determined 'how' He would save, He also knew 'whom' He would save. Thus it is God who determined whom He will save. The previous statement is based upon His decree to save by grace through faith, which man had no say in.

If you can't understand that I really can't help you. But




Also I never stated anythign about schools teaching or not teach it.

While you find the statement that was just before you made this statement, are you saying this is simply "Allan's Theology"?

I can show you TONS of good men that believe as I. I'm in no way...out in left field by myself.

 

[BaptistBob]

I can show you TONS of good men that believe as I. I'm in no way...out in left field by myself.

That's a childish argument. If that's a good way to think, then we would still think the earth is flat and that the sun orbits the earth.

As for his explanation concerning election, I would say that the majority of the people posting on theologyweb would agree with him. Thomas McCall who teaches systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School is one of may that would agree with him.

 

[BaptistBob]

Now there are more we can add to this list.

You can just keep adding to that list, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Winman]

John 4 shows that a person is involved in their own salvation.

John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Here Jesus is speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus is speaking of receiving the Holy Spirt. He tells her if she knew who he was, then she would ASK for the Holy Spirit.

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

This woman was not an unbeliever, she was looking for the promised Messias from OT scripture.

John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

So, this woman was a believer. But she did not recognize Jesus as the promised Messiah immediately. Jesus does slowly reveal himself to her, by telling her facts about herself that no normal person would know.

John 4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

You see, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. As this woman heard Jesus speak, she was filled with faith. No normal man could have this knowledge.

And we do not know what else was spoken to her by Jesus, but whatever it was convinced her that Jesus was the Christ.

John 4:28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

So faith is not some magical thing. Faith comes by hearing and believeing God's Word. This woman listened to Jesus and came to believe he was the promised Christ she had waited for. And we see the same from those of her village.

John 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
41 And many more believed because of his own word;
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

In verse 39 we see a person can get faith by hearing a normal person. But in verse 42 we see these folks were more firmly convinced by hearing the words of Jesus themselves.

 

[canadyjd]

Originally Posted by Jarthur001 I can show you TONS of good men that believe as I. I'm in no way...out in left field by myself.

That's a childish argument. If that's a good way to think, then we would still think the earth is flat and that the sun orbits the earth.

As for his explanation concerning election, I would say that the majority of the people posting on theologyweb would agree with him. Thomas McCall who teaches systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School is one of may that would agree with him.

:laugh:You criticized Jarthur001, calling his statement "childish".... and then you made the exact same argument.

How embarrassing:laugh:

peace to youraying:

 

[BaptistBob]

[/I]

:laugh:You criticized Jarthur001, calling his statement "childish".... and then you made the exact same argument.

How embarrassing:laugh:

peace to youraying:

No I didn't make the same mistake. He asked for information about who thought what. He said the doesn't know anyone who thinks that way. Why would someone responding to his request be guilty of his fallacy?

Try to focus. How embarrassing:laugh:

I never said I agreed with the topic, so I have no skin in the game.

peace to you

Empty words.

 

[Jarthur001]

That's a childish argument.

Let me understand you. Are you saying it is childish to see if others believe as you? In historical theology are we not instructed to us our understanding of systems of the past as a critical tool for new systems? At that the new system must be ran through the critical process? In fact the words I can recall to this day is that if you are the 1st to have a new idea after 2000 years of study by others before you, one most likely have it wrong.

If that's a good way to think, then we would still think the earth is flat and that the sun orbits the earth.

People believed the earth was flat because they did not follow the rule above. The idea of a flat earth of Columbus' day may be rather exaggerated. Columbus' crew may have been uneasy due to being so far from land, not necessarily from a fear of falling off the earth. At least, the popular view of the story, the one in public culture, has only been stated in textbooks since the 1880s -- not before that time. If however they would have people would have believed the Bible and not fallen for the "NEW FLAT EARTH IDEA" and would have been critical of said new idea, when it came up, they would not be laughed at today.

As for his explanation concerning election, I would say that the majority of the people posting on theologyweb would agree with him.

ok...then please state what election is.

Thomas McCall who teaches systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School is one of may that would agree with him.

Does McCall have a book? I would love to read it

 

[Jarthur001]

You can just keep adding to that list, as far as I'm concerned.

I can....

but what would be the point?

What I have asked was not to you, but rather Allan. I wanted to know which groups held to his view of election? This way I can read about it and understand it better.

Maybe you can give me a book or a school that teaches Allans views being that you know so much about Allans views.