Featured Emotional or Exegetical?

So, if God can kill people and cast them in the lake of fire, not because they are evil, but simply to glorify himself, then why can't we kill people to glorify ourselves?

I mean, to you this is some sort of godly justice that our depraved minds do not understand.

Luke, you already blew it, the cat is out of the bag. Calvinism offends your very conscience and sense of justice. You had to surrender what you always knew and believed to be right to accept this doctrine. Non-Cals do not have to do this, our doctrine agrees with justice.

 

Romans 3:23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 5:12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

God could have chosen to save all, He did not!

God could have chosen to save none; there would have been no Cross. He chose to save some.

If God had not chosen to save some then none would have been saved. So why not give God all the Glory Winman. He chose you!

Obviously some don't. We all deserve the justice of God but He Chose to have mercy on some.

Your doctrine agrees with the carnal idea of justice but your doctrine denies Scripture. Sadly you chose the carnal idea of justice! The patriarch Job asked: Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? [Job 4:17]

Your answer, Winman, is yes I can!

 

In my most humble opinion, Winman, you are totally ignorant of the Doctrines of Grace. It is false, again in my opinion, to say that I make outrageous accusations against God. I simply quote the words of God for your learning. I believe, and I could be mistaken, that you have used the term "monster" in relation to the nature of God. If I accuse you falsely I ask your forgiveness.

 

My arguement is that it is not one or the other, but both. Its an exegeses of Mark 4 and Matt. 13. And its not just a "why" question it is a logical one. It doesnt appear logical to assume a man is born totally blinded from understanding the gospel (as Calvinism does) while scripture clearly reveals that parables are used to blind them lest they be healed. There really isnt much emotion in that.

#1 - question begging fallacy (i am willing to believe and accept whatever i think God has revealed...i believe my view because i believe scripture teaches it, not because some emotional view of justice that ive invented.)



#2 - that is not my problem. Its less about Gods foreknowing of someone destiny and more about his predeterming of it.

i can say the same from my perspective.

 

I am not denying that all men sin, that is why men go to hell. But that is not what Calvinism teaches, Calvinism teaches that God had already determined who would be cast in the lake of fire before they were born or ever sinned. Sin is not the determining factor, because in your view God chose many sinners to go to heaven. God did not damn the non-elect because of sin in your doctrine, his choice was "unconditional" not determined by whether a man is good or bad, or any foreseen faith. You cannot explain why God chose to damn a certain number of men, but you absolutely teach it is not because of goodness or sin, or anything seen in the man such as foreseen faith.

In Calvinism, men do not go to hell because of sin, they go to hell because God chose to pass them by.

And this is your error. God could not save all men. The only way God could save men was by having Jesus die for our sins and men trusting in this sacrifice. If a man will not believe, he cannot be saved.

I do not agree with this, it was in God's nature and love for his creation that he must save men. Could you let one of your children drown and just stand there and watch? or would you be compelled by your love to do everything you could to save your child?

God chose to save all, but a man must believe on Jesus Christ to be saved. God chose to save any man who would trust in his Son. God determined who would be saved, he determined the condition upon which a man could be saved. A man must submit to God and trust in Jesus to be saved. It is when men fail to submit to God and go about to establish their own righteousness that they cannot be saved.

Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

No, he chose to have mercy on all.

Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

If the word of God cannot be understood by men then it becomes completely unintelligible. When the scriptures say justice, this is a word and concept men can understand. In your view, men cannot understand what God means when he says justice. Absurd. All of God's word is vain and meaningless if men cannot understand it.

It is your view that makes man appear more just than God. No man would condemn and execute a child for something his father did before he was born. No man would ordain that his children would sin, and then punish them for the sin he ordained they would do. It is your view that makes God appear unjust.

This is exactly what Luke pointed out in the OP. Calvinism to him seemed unjust. It was a hard pill to swallow for him. He had to give up what he believed to be just to believe what he had before believed unjust. He had to be convinced that his view of justice was "depraved" before he could accept what seemed unjust to him.

Calvinists are the ones that struggle with this issue, and rightfully so.

 

Here is the root of your fallacy Winman! All mankind is destined for hell, their just deserts! God chooses to rescue some out of that fate and you think He is a "monster"! Very sad!

Their sins are covered by the blood of jesus Christ.

That is so false Winman. All mankind is lost because of sin. God graciously chooses to save you and me and you complain. That is pathetic! Talk about being thankful! You see Winman you are so wrapped up in your own concept of "freewill" that you fault God for saving you.

I am glad you finally understand that His Choice is Unconditional!

All mankind is under condemnation because of sin and rebellion against Him. Through His marveleous Grace He chooses some out of the total number of mankind, doomed because of sin, and you fault HIM, saying that is "Monstrous"!

You have a pathetic view of the Grace of God, of the Holiness of God, of the Love of God. It is because of the view of people like you that Mexdeaf can weep!:tear::tear:

Winman you are beyond belief. Now you are telling God what He could or could not do. If He could save you and me He can save anyone.

I really don't care whether you believe it or not. I am not GOD and neither are you Winman and I don't propose to tell Him what He can or cannot do!

If GOD had chosen to save all ALL would be saved. Once again we see puny mortal man telling GOD what He can or cannot do.:tear:

Now you set yourself up as judge of the Word of GOD. You don't think much of yourself do you?

Winman your reasoning is getting ridiculous. You are bringing God down to the level of man.

You really need to read all of what Luke said.

Note how Luke talks about his "depraved sense of justice". Nearly everything you have said above shows that you are in the same position Luke was, in the same position I was at one time. But praise GOD he led me out of the wilderness of Arminianism and into the glorious truths of the Doctrines of Grace.

My advice to you, Winman, and I say this sincerely after debating you for years: Let GOD be GOD, let Scripture speak to you!

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

double post

 

Completely false, in Calvinism the elect were NEVER destined for hell, they were destined to be saved.

All men's sins were covered by the blood of Jesus, but a man must submit to God and trust in Christ to receive this gift.

No, in Calvinism those who are lost are lost because God chose to pass them by before they were ever born and could sin. God ordained their sin when they were born. They had no choice to sin, they were ordained to be born sinners with a depraved nature that could only sin. They did not choose to be born this way, and if your doctrine is true, they did not choose to sin, they were compelled to sin by a nature that could only sin. Men have absolutely no choice in the matter if Calvinism is true.

God has chosen those who submit to his righteousness and trust in Christ. I am thankful that God called me and convicted me to make that decision.

Then you admit that men were not damned because of sin, but because God determined to damn them before they were born and could sin.

No, in your doctrine they were condemned unconditionally before they were born. It was already decided who was condemned and who was not before any man was born.

You cannot say God chooses those who are saved and and those who are lost unconditionally and then blame sin for their condemnation. You are trying to have it both ways, but that cannot possibly be true.

Your view is not grace. If God ordained men should sin, then sin is not their fault, but God's. Men are not rebels, but victims if God ordained men should be born with a nature that can only sin. It is JUSTICE that God should save man if your view is correct.

No, I am telling you what the scriptures say. Jesus said that no man cometh unto the Father but by him. This is the ONLY way any man can be saved.

How could I tell God what to do? That is impossible for any man.

Again, God provided but one way for all men to be saved, and that is by trusting in Jesus. If a man will not submit to God and trust in Jesus he cannot possibly be saved.

I do not set myself up as judge, I simply tell you what the scriptures plainly say. Many scriptures say that God loves all men and desires that all men be saved. Calvinism perverts all of these scriptures.

God brought himself down to the level of man when Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us. God does not speak to us in words we cannot understand, God does not have different meanings for words than we do. Justice means the same to God as it does to us.

I read what Luke said.

Luke was offended by the "Doctrines of Grace". They made God appear unjust to him. His conscience and sense of justice were offended by this doctrine and rightfully so. It was only when he allowed himself to be convinced by Reformed "scholars" that his natural sense of justice was depraved that he could accept the doctrines of Calvinism. He had to cast away his sense of justice. Obviously, you did the same.

Another false argument. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are denying the sovereignty of God. You ASSUME your view is correct when there are volumes of scripture which refute it. I have probably posted hundreds of scripture that refute Calvinism. You know that very well.

 

Winman, in my opinion, and I have been reading your freewill stuff for 7-8 years, you are ignorant not only of what constitutes the Doctrines of Grace but much of what Scripture teaches about mankind.

One thing is certain: The Doctrines of Grace are consistent with Scripture. Arminianism, pelagianism, semi-pelagianism, and freewillism are inconsistent, even contrary, to the teaching of Scripture.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/449033/Pelagianism

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/533895/semi-Pelagianism

http://www.bible-researcher.com/arminianism.html

 

Thanks for the resources Old Regular, but as HoS said before, you have only read what Pelagius's opponents said about him. Your article is false, Pelagius was acquitted twice when he was present and allowed to defend himself. He was only condemned later when he was not present and not allowed to defend himself. Augustine could not win a fair fight.

A little from Wiki;

As this article points out, most of what people know of Pelagius comes from his opponents. However, when one examines his true words, he was found to be orthodox. He did not claim that a man could merit salvation by works.

Calvinists are always calling non-Cals and Arminians Pelagians. It is nothing but a smear tactic and does nothing to prove that Calvinism is correct, or that those who are non-Cals are wrong.

I have never said any man could earn or merit salvation through good works. Saying a man can perform good works is not the same as saying man can merit salvation. I do say that man can perform good works. When a man tells the truth, that is a good work whether he is regenerate or not. To obey God's commands is good, to disobey is evil, it is as simple as that. To say (as many do) that an unregenerate man sins when he obeys the law is nonsensical. This would make God's commandments meaningless and unnecessary. Besides that, I have directly shown scripture where Jesus himself said "evil" men can do good.

Mat 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Jesus himself said evil men can do good works, you cannot deny it.

This does not mean man can merit salvation. To merit salvation a man would have to be 100% good his entire life and never sin once. It took only one single sin for Adam and Eve to spiritually die in the garden, it is the same for all men.

You can speculate whether a man would come along and keep the law perfectly his whole life, but that has never happened except for Jesus himself. The scriptures say that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

I do agree with Pelagius that Original Sin is false doctrine, and I have shown MANY scriptures over the past several years I believe clearly supports my view. I believe all men are born upright (Ecc 7:29) but that all men when they mature and understand right from wrong willingly and knowingly sin against God.

 

What are his "true" words? You didn't post them so how can we examine them?

You have said yourself that the elder brother of the prodigal kept the law perfectly and was sinless, also the 99 sheep. So you do believe that others besides Jesus were perfect, yet now you're contradicting yourself.

If all men are born upright then why do all sin? Why hasn't even one person remained sinless?

 

Good questions Amy G.

Of course Wiki is the ultimate source when it comes to accuracy. Then God tells us through the Apostle Paul, Romans 3:20: Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Furthermore, the passage from Ecclesiastes is in reference to Adam and Eve and they blew it!

 

No, I didn't but the article itself said that:

Now, I admit, I am taking this author's word for it that Pelagius was "highly orthodox". I do not know what works this author and others read. I am merely showing that when his writings (and not the opinions of others) were examined, he was found to be orthodox.

I have read very little of Pelagius (or any other theologian for that matter). I believe what I believe from what the scriptures say. I almost always post the scripture that I believe supports my view, almost never does anyone refute it.

I was simply pointing out that to accuse non-Cals of being Pelagians is a smear tactic. It does not prove that Calvinism is correct whatsoever. Most of the folks who accuse non-Cals of Pelagianism do not know what Pelagius believed.

What I believe is that the ONLY persons these could be are babies or very young children who did not know between good and evil and therefore are not held accountable for sin. I have showed much scripture to support this such as Deu 1:39 where God did not hold the children of Israel accountable for their parents sin because they had no knowledge between good and evil.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.


God caused all the parents who knowingly sinned in the wilderness to perish, not one was allowed into the promised land. But the children who had no knowledge between good and evil were allowed in and possessed it. I believe the promised land is an OT figure of heaven.

The scriptures constantly show that a man must have knowledge of right and wrong to be guilty of sin. Paul said he would not have known sin except for the law.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Here Paul shows it was the law that condemned him. He did not know what sin is until the law taught him. He said he was alive without the law once. When could this be? the law was written around 1500 years before he was born. The only practical answer is that he is speaking of being a child and not knowing or understanding the law. But once he matured and understood the law, he was condemned by the law and spiritually died.

I have shown many other scriptures besides these, such as Jesus saying the prodigal son was alive AGAIN when he repented. If we are born dead in sin, it could never be said we are alive AGAIN.

False argument. It may be possible in theory that a man could go without sinning, but in reality no man except Jesus ever has.

A baseball player in theory could hit 1.000 for a season, but in reality no player ever has. That does not mean he cannot hit the ball at all. So, this is a false form of argument.

Adam and Eve lived in a perfect environment without need. The very first time they were tempted they sinned. What makes you think that a person born into an utterly corrupt world with thousands of temptations could go their entire lifetime without sinning?

To me it is not incredible that all men sin, to me it is incredible that Jesus could live 33 years with the nature of man and a body of flesh that tempted him in all points as we are, yet he never sinned. That is incredible.

The reason Jesus could be our High Priest and have compassion on us is because he knew the weakness of our flesh and the mighty pull and tug of temptation upon us. He experienced this temptation himself.

 

Amy....LOL, you go girl. Winman, "Have you considered the Lords servant Amy, a blameless & upright woman, one who fears God & shuns evil?"

 

Why do you take the author's word for it over the writings of others who lived at the time of Pelagius? I'll tell you. Because you agree with the author that OS is wrong.

Were you not critical of those who oppose Pelagius because they didn't have his original words, only the opinions of those who knew him? Aren't you doing the same thing?

Scripture does not support your view that's why it's considered unorthodox at the least and heresy at the worst.

Some non Cals ARE Pelagians.

And that interpretation makes zero sense. The elder brother of the prodigal was not a baby.

 

I really don't know much of what Pelagius believed, so I cannot comment on him. I do agree that Original Sin is false, millions have believed that. The Eastern Orthodox Church that used only Greek texts disagreed with Augustine's interpretation of Romans 5:12 from an admitted (by scholars) flawed Latin text. The EOC has never agreed with Augustine's concept of Original Sin, although they do believe a corruption passed on the world which I also agree with. John Smyth, who is almost universally recognized as the person who formed the first Baptist church and denomination did not believe in Original Sin. It might be rightly argued that you are not a Baptist if you believe in OS, it is a departure from what was originally held by Baptists.

But I don't care about that, I derive what I believe from scripture. I showed you Deu 1:39 and what Paul said in Romans 7. Paul said he was alive without the law once. He of course is speaking of being spiritually alive, because he said he died. He could not have written this scripture when he was physically dead.

If Original Sin is true, then how could Paul ever say he was spiritually alive once? He couldn't. And if we are born dead in sin, how could Jesus say the prodigal son was alive "again"? He couldn't. If we are born dead in sin and separated from God, how could Peter say in 1 Pet 2:25 that we are "returned" to God? He couldn't. You cannot return to someplace you have never been.

So, there is MUCH scripture that I believe clearly refutes Original Sin whether Pelagius believed this or not. I do not let others think for me.

I am saying it is an unfounded smear tactic to accuse folks of being a Pelagian when they do not know what Pelagius believed. It is also wrong to accuse Pelagius of heresy when you do not know what he believed.

Look, it is Calvinists that constantly use this tactic, not non-Cals. It is a dishonest smear tactic. If you think this is proper Christian behavior, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

True

True

True

True, so far so good!

False, Calvinism is brought into scripture and dumped like fools gold.

If you do not find Calvinism is scripture, it is not because of bias against those who claim they do. It is in spite of our love for our fellow believers.

We disagree on how God is choosing a people for His own possession. Our views are based on what scripture teaches.

False yet again, we know God creates people and then begs them to choose life, but allows their autonomous choice to decide life or death. ​

They swallowed the mistaken doctrine in spite of scripture.

Note how those who hold differing views are seen as flawed rather than godly, just like many cults teach.

We see through eyes that are lighted by God’s guidance, same as every other born again believer.

Is it a difficult truth that Christ did not become the propitiation for the whole world, or is it mistaken doctrine based on 1 John 2:2.
Is it a difficult truth that God chooses us for salvation unconditionally, or is it a mistaken doctrine based on 2 Thessalonians 2:13.
Is it a difficult truth that no one seeks God at any time, or is it a mistaken doctrine based on Matthew 13:1-26.
Is it a difficult truth that God’s grace offering salvation is irresistible, or is it a mistaken doctrine based on Matthew 23:13. ​

 

Part of my response was lost, so I'll have to answer again.

Perhaps I am a Pelagian, I do not know, because I do not know (or care) what he believed.

I believe what I believe from scripture, not what others say. I do not let others think for me. And I almost always show scripture I believe supports my view.

No, and men are not sheep either, but that is the analogy Jesus used to describe men. False argument.

You cannot explain who the 99 sheep are that were never lost and needed no repentance, but it was Jesus himself who said this. You cannot explain who the 9 pieces of silver were who were never lost, but it was Jesus who said this. You cannot explain who the elder son was that never transgressed his father's commandments at any time, yet it was Jesus that said this. Jesus did not lie, and Jesus did not mislead. He told us about these persons for a reason, and we should study to find out who they are. In my opinion, this could only be babies or very small children. We are clearly told that Esau and Jacob had committed no sin while they were in their mother's womb in Romans 9:11. If they had died in this state they would have been without sin and needed no repentance. In my opinion these are the only persons Jesus could have been speaking of in Luke 15.