Featured Ezekiel 3 Debunks "Election"

You admit there are various views of Arminianism. Everyone on this forum knows there are various views of Calvinism (5, 4, 3, 2, 1 pointers; supra, infra, etc.). So to pretend that "Calvinism" must be defined and fit into your restricted form is simply delusional. You are primarily addressing supralapsarianism. You are right that I am not an infralapsarian Calvinst. However, your problem is that you believe that in repudiating that form of Calvinism you have repudiated all forms of Calvinism and that is simply delusional.

 

Yes, the will of the lost is in "bondage of sin" just like the rest of his moral nature. His will is the servant of his moral nature and nothing more or less, just as God's will is the servant of His moral nature nothing more or less.

 

Isn't that exactly what you and James are guilty of???? Did not James deny I was a "Calvinist" simply because my explanation of the will did not fit his paradigm of "Calvinism"??????? I have also read Jacob Arminius and his five points, but the use of the term "Arminianism" covers more territory now because of its developed theological use then it did at the time of Jacob Arminius. Also, the term "Calvinism" has a much broader application now (5,4,3,2,1 pointers, supra, infra, reformed, non-reformed, etc.) than it did when Calvin was alive.

If you cannot admit this then you are simply not well read or studied because it is an obvious fact known to all, even to you, I think.

 

Yet another one sentence post and you ask if this is all I got?

Ach has an admitted agenda,as does the other detractors like Winman, Van,Benjamin ,and Skan. They do try and offer some links, or some scripture.

Then we have the pile on cheerleader types,like you,webdog,Aic,robert snow,itl,mb,....you do not seem interested to actually dialog scripturally.
Biblicist, Herald,Jbh, P4t,Edward,kyred,Sn,Rippon,Aaron,Archangel,Dr.Bob,AmyG,Convicted1,Scarlett O,and several others offer scripture meant to help.

Others are at least sincere and participate and offer verses or links meant to provoke thought even when we are not all in agreement.

Why should I offer more when you do not want a biblical answer?

ezk 3> is expanded on In ezk 33> the watchman
4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head

Paul quotes this in acts 18 in the context of electing grace and reprobation,even though Ach claims God providentially does not offer the gospel by such means,and your silence toward him suggests you are like minded!
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.


I will offer to those who want an answer...not to you and Ach and the other drive by posters:thumbs:

 

There is more truth in the op than you have provided in your entire time here. The post is spot on, and only those interested in truth can see it :thumbs:

 

Amazing you do not see the hypocrisy of this post. Simply amazing.

 

What is amazing is that you and Webdog continually refuse to offer any scriptural discussion...like here, yet another one sentence snide remark, that you are becoming a specialist at......

I do not care what position you hold,RM.....offer some verses or a link,or something....put up...or shut up:wavey::wavey::thumbs:

 

Many times you were answered scripturally by me as well as others, then you and RM, disappear like a turtle into your sanctimonious shell.

Man up and post your biblical case if you have one....I have not seen it.Whatever you believe...post it with biblical support. Put up, or shut up...we are having a special on that today:wavey::thumbs:

 

Not only that, he added p4t to the list of those who want to seriously discuss doctrine. He is more blind than I thought. With iconoclast, you can engage him in his confessions, sermons and copy and paste verses, and when cornered where you point out where he is wrong, he will make a little joke, add an emoticon, and vanish, not actually addressing anything. He will then come back with 'you don't provide Scripture', 'you are a one line poster', blah, blah, blah.

 

No, you just simply don't know what you are talking about and it is obvious as your whole argument ASSUMES that God must have predestinated the salvation of the elect the FIRST time they hear the gospel when the Word of God clearly denies that MUST be so.

First, the text does not say anything about "the sinner COULD HAVE been saved." That is your assumption, your inference not the inference of the text. The text deals only with the accountability of the watchman and his responsiblity. If he had been responsible that still would not have guaranteed preventing the wicked from death (2 Cor. 1:15-17). His irresponsibility was not the cause of the wicked being punished as that would incriminate God as unjust if it were.

What do you imagine "responsible...usage" is? It is accountabilty for the predestinated means employed. Your error of logic is that you assume every time the gospel is preached to an elect that this is also the appointed time for the gospel to come in power when it is not always the case as the planting and watering scenario demonstrates. So simply because God has appointed the means and responsible usage does not mean that the FIRST or SECOND or THIRD time is the appointed time.

No, I did not switch gears or flip flop at all. Do you actually believe that you are the first to present this argument to me???? My response is my common response to this argument that Arminians use from this passage and other passages similar to this one. Your whole argument is based upon the fallicy that predestinated means is contrary to responsibility for those means. It is also based upon the fallicy that responsible use would have prevented the wicked from death and irresponsible use is what condemns the wicked to death when neither is true.

Do you really believe that God condemns people to an eternal hell for someone's elses fault????? That is precisely what you are teaching! They do not go to hell because of my wickedness but because they are "wicked". My wickedness (irresponsiblilty) is laid to my account alone not theirs.

No it does not! Your statement simply ignores other Biblical data that denies the premise of your statement. Your statement perverts our position, builds a straw man and then triumphantly burns it. The fact is that uncondiitional election is not contrary to God's predestinated time for application which in turn is not contraditory to the gospel being shared multiple times to an elect before being empowered by God to their salvation - as some plant and others water but in God's due time God gives the increase.

Scripture please??? Furthermore, this is not the tenet of all Calvinists and it is false to suggest that it is. I know of no Calvinist that believes that the FIRST exposure to the gospel MUST salvation occur to one of God's elect. Calvinist teach that the gospel comes in "word only" many times before it comes "in power." You are simply living in the land make believe.

You are simply igorant of the varies views among Calvinists and it is obvious. No Calvinist on this forum believes that the elect MUST BE saved the very FIRST TIME they hear the gospel. I doubt if you can even quote any standard Calvinist theology that makes such a statement?

 

I have read Jacob Arminius and I realize He was reacting to High Calvinism. However, as I told Revmitchell both theological terms "Calinvism" and "Arminianism" have developed into a broader application and you know it.

 

And it is a misapplication and it does nothing but distract from any real discussion.

 

Isn't that exactly what you fella's object to when Calvinist say this???:wavey:

 

Let's try this. Where in Acts 18 do you find electing grace and reprobation without arriving at it with this preconceived notion? How do the words you highlighted above debunk what James said in the op? Man up...don't post a creed or sermon, let's hear YOU defend your position.

 

You obviously didn't catch the fecetiousness complete with accompanying emoticon.

 

if we were living in the 16th century it would be a distraction. However, we are not living in the 16th century but the 21st century and it is delusional to restrict these termonologies to the 16th century when the theological base has broadened exceedingly to include vast variations.

If this is what you and James want to argue about, then your argument is with Presbyterians not Baptists and High Calvinism of the supralapsarian variety. However, even among supralapsarians there are differences.

 

Perhaps not! My mistake!