Featured Easier?

I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

According to his mercy.

A little concerning faith.

From chapter 17 Luke.

And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

Would anyone like to take a shot at that?

Mark 11:20,21 KJV And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.

22 YLT And Jesus answering saith to them, `Have faith of God;

Of or in, which should it be??

V 23 KJV For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

Why I believe it should be of. John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Take the concept of obedience of faith. Doesn't that really mean obedient unto the faith through which grace came?

With man it is impossible but with God (the faith) all things are possible.

 

Winman the Arminian will say you Calvanist as quickly as the Calvanist call those who see it different Arminian. Neither group sees a third biblically backed view based on the original language and Pauline doctrine. That's ok we cane still hold our ground. That God in His foreknowing those who would place their faith in Christ has called, elected and saved them based on their Faith and calling upon Christ for salvation.
The Hyper-Calvanist follow the doctrine where it logically leads because the doctrine was developed that way, the problem is they have to perform Eisegesis on scripture instead of Exegesis to get it to fit their doctrinal beliefs.

 

This is just incorrect. This is ONLY a problem when people overly individualize the concept of election. The ordo salutes is: election of Israel to bring redemption to the rest of the world through Christ and His message which is told by individually chosen prophets, priests, kings and apostles; the Holy Spirit comes down like fire to convict the world of sin, the gospel is sent into all the world (first to the Jew and then the Gentiles) to make the appeal from God for every enemy to be reconciled (evangelism), the church is founded, whosoever believes will repent and be saved. Period. There is not incoherent about that. Only when people add their man-made philosophical theories does something so simple because confounded.

 

that's what they would say, but it's not true. I'm staying consistent with what the Bible teaches. Just because something can be taken to an extreme doesn't mean that it should. They make faulty speculations per my example earlier. It's just like those that say that you and I believe that we should just sin all we want because we cannot lose our salvation. That's the "logical" extreme they take it to. But you and I disagree of course for many reasons.


oh, I listened to a video that said that John Piper wasn't a Calvinist. I can't image how hyper this person must have been.

 

Yeah, good stuff by Piper here: Piper quotes on conditions for salvation.

Glad to know that neither he nor I is a true Calvinist!

 

Are you seriously asking where I disagree with the hyper Calvinist? I have no clue about any creeds. My theology isn't based on any man made creeds. The problem with hyper calvinist is that they ignore biblical truths. They can only take something to a "logical" end because they ignore biblical truths.

As Spurgeon said:
Emphasis mine...

"I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring."

 

Great quote by Spurgeon! So he wasn't Calvinist and neither was he Arminian. He was in the middle like MOST of us here on the BB!

 

No, actually, Spurgeon was PRECISELY Calvinist. Anything beyond Spurgeon (as expressed in the quote above) is also beyond Calvinism proper and into hyper-Calvinism.

As for Winman and others suggesting that the "logical end of Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism" that is flat out a lie and with that lie he and others join the ranks of the Father of Lies in becoming an accuser of the brethren, for indeed what he is calling anyone who holds to the Doctrines of Grace, i.e., a Calvinist is an heretic, for that is precisely what hyper-Calvinism -- as its counterpart at the opposite end of the spectrum, Pelagianism -- is.

Again, Calvinism DOES NOT DEPART FROM THE SCRIPTURES, which Spurgeon demonstrates so very well above. Interestingly, I've not read that particular Spurgeon quote before, but I have argued virtually an identical argument, both here on this board and other places where the concept has come up. That is because we both see the Scriptures in the same manner and we both must reconcile what they (ALL OF THEM) say.

As for God chosing to elect those whom He first saw having faith -- that is utter nonsense and promptly removes God from His throne. Winman is absolutely correct in saying that that belief is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian -- it is neither for sure -- it is, rather something else entirely, for it removes God from the picture except as a divine bell hop who comes at our beck and call. God forgive and God help us, for only He can... Mercy on the souls of those who so remove Him from His divine throne in such a manner... Serious business and the point I am making has nothing to do with winning or loosing an argument on a silly Baptist board. It has everything to do with the eternal position of those who hold it.

Finally, Winman, what do you do with specific Bible passages that SAY
"those who persevere until the end shall be saved." Seems that you must necessarily skip over those verses, or as Skandelon has demonstrated, re-define them into some form of corporate Israel scheme.

 

The quote was from A Defence of Calvinism by Charles Spurgeon. Pg 25-26

 

So he appeals to mystery. Perhaps more of us should do the same. I would like to know Spurgeon's idea of the origin of evil, however. For God to be in "absolute control," wouldn't he have to cause it? What sayest thou, glfredrick?

 

New Perspective on Paul rears its head yet again. Sorry friend.

 

I say that the Scriptures say otherwise, and to say that God originated (as an actual act) evil or sin is to blaspheme our God.

That is where those arguing against Calvinism based on a human logical proposition fall into problems. We DARE NOT exceed the revelation, and within those bounds Calvinism is the most scriptural doctrine -- period -- for if there were another where God's utter sovereignty were held, I would take it. I am not a Calvinist because of my a priori presupposition that it must be correct, I am a Calvinist because I was once an atheist, once an agnostic, once an Arminian, once a non-whatever, and now, by the abject grace of God a Calvinist, for I know from whence my Redeemer and redemption comes, and it is not from I.

 

I know that, too, but I don't have to be a Calvinist to know it.

 

Labeling and dismissing is the lazy man's debate method. There is nothing "new" about my perspective on what Paul teaches and even those seen as the scholars supporting the NPP view don't believe the things you seem to think.

 

Whether or not you like it, that IS what the theological position you have adopted is called -- or would you rather that we identified it by its Catholic roots instead?

You are in deep liberal waters and it is REALLY starting to show. For a while you actually had a lot of people around here convinced that you were trying to be fair and balanced, looking for middle ground, but it becomes more evident every day that you are on a mission and sadly, it is heterodox not orthodox.