Featured Calvinism and Marriage

Why isn't it shameful for Reformed folks to use this language, but it is for me? Go back to my post and click on those links, they will take you to pages written by Reformed/Calvinist, not Arminians. Look for yourself. They both discuss how R.C. Sproul has used the expression "holy rape of the soul". And one of them says the phrase is actually truthful and accurate, because when it comes down to it, the Reformed view shows a "forced love".

Why do you guys try to hide from your own Reformed views? Are you ashamed of Calvinism? I think you are.

As far as Biblicist, I have answered him dozens of times with scripture. He is not used to people standing up to him. Too bad.

 

You are just becoming unglued. nobody has to go there & you well know it so dont play the innocent here. You could have

 

I am not playing innocent. I compared Irresistible Grace to rape because it is accurate. And I have showed where noted Calvinists themselves have made the same comparison.

It is you that is afraid to own up to the reality of your own doctrine. I give Sproul credit, the guy has guts. I respect that.

 

Have you ever served in the military?

 

It must be perspective, because I see just the opposite. If one is made willing to only obey, his comparison (actually Sproul's comparison) is quite accurate. You can try to redefine the word willing, but without the freedom to choose otherwise, it is forced.

 

No, and what does that have to do with anything?

 

Of course it will fly. The court can easily distinguish between something natural or anything regarded as a product of creation and thus an internal transformation is considered natural. However, drug induced rape is drug inducded rape and is punishable by law.

However, your analogy compares the final products and the regenerated man has an internal transformational desire that is without "repentance" or regret (2 Cor. 7:10) but the drug induced victim does not remain drugged but the final product is resentment and renewed resistance.

Let me put it this way. Your position requires a transformational change of nature in order to be transformed. If the fallen nature is by character resistant then your position requires the very change in nature that regeneration obtains but prior to regeneration.

That argument has no basis in Scripture simply because to be "born of flesh" is to be "in the flesh." Even Jesus offered no third kind of man in John 3:6 but only two "of the flesh" or "of the Spirit" neither does Paul offer a THIRD type of man in Romans 8:8-9 but only two "in the flesh" or "in the Spirit." No such third kind of man exists.

These are regenerated men. Even if you reject the indwelling of the Spirit at this point in time, you cannot reject regeneration by the Spirit as that is a Pre-cross necessity according to Christ (Jn. 3:3-10). Indeed, there can be no salvation of any sinner at any time apart from regeneration as the fundemental problem of sin is INTERNAL not something EXTERNAL to man involving a defective heart. This is clearly taught througout the OT scriptures and circumcision of the heart is an OT doctrine as much as a NT doctrine simply because there is NO DIFFERENT PROBLEM due to sin between sinners living prior to the cross than those living after the cross and there can only be ONE SOLUTION and it is an INTERNAL transformation of the heart which no human being can perform on himself.

I would condemn the use by Sproul as much as by you as it is not an equitable comparison at all.

 

'And I will put my Spirit within you, and will cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules'. - YHWH

'...for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.' - YHWH

What a shame! I mean, where are MY rights? What a horrendous thing to do to a lost dying sinner, or to even a saint! I don't want Him to cause me or make me will to do His good work and what He wants!!!! Again, this is not FAIR where are MY rights?!!!! <total sarcasm at least on my part>

But folks the above is just what the anti-cals here are arguing. They want 'fairness' they want 'justice' and they want their rights. They simply do not get it. Scriptures are clear and thank God for His Spirit working in us to cause us to obey Him and cause us to have the will to do so.

 

psalm 110-thy people shall be willing
rom6:16-19- the new heart obeys

 

My advice to you is never become a lawyer, you will starve to death.

Makes no difference. The Koreans brainwashed our soldiers in the Korean War, when they came out of it they were willing communists. That doesn't make it right.

Patty Hearst was brainwashed to willingly participate in bank robberies. Do you think that was right?

You are simply trying to rationalize and justify what you intuitively know is wrong.

Total Inability is the question, you can never seem to grasp that. Non Calvinists do not believe a person has to be regenerated before they can be willing to believe. We believe a person can be reasoned with and convinced or persuaded to be willing to believe.

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

And yet Jesus himself said, "the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" clearly making a distinction between their spirit and their flesh.

And it absolutely has a basis in scripture, it IS scripture. Look up Matthew 26:41 in your Bible and see for yourself. It's there.

I know they did not have the indwelling Spirit because John 7:39 said the Holy Spirit had not been given yet. Jesus also told his disciples in John chapter 14 that it was necessary that he go away so that he could send the Holy Spirit to them. Up to this time the Spirit only dwelt with them (which I believe is actually referring to Jesus himself) but afterward he would be "in you".

So I know they did not have the indwelling Spirit because the scriptures say so.

It is what it is, if you use drugs or supernatural power to cause an unwilling person to be willing you have violated that person.

God is not a hypocrite, God does not give us laws that he does not live by himself. God cannot just do "whatever" as many Reformed here argue. God is HOLY and therefore cannot do immoral things.

 

I think you are making Winman's point.

 

How's that?

 

Is ridicule the only response you can muster? Common sense demands in a court of law that an act of God must be distinguished from a drug induced act by man. Common sense demands that an internal TRANSFORMATIONAL act that makes no charge upon any other person or is without any consequential resentment must be distinguished from drug induced actions by one upon another where resentment and abuse is chargable. Are you incapable of discerning these clear differences? Any good lawyer could easily see the first is a case that cannot be won in court while the latter is easily won in court.

In a court of law they would be regarded as victims who were made subject to EXTERNAL force against their will. That is not the case of regeneration or the effectual call as there is no external force exerted whatsoever but an act of CREATION manifest in "repentance" or A WILLING CHANGE OF MIND.

You are talking from the perspective of a believer with a theological bias. However, no unbeliever even cares. The fallen nature "IS" described as a STATE ("is" state of being verbs) of enmity against God (Rom. 8:7a) and that kind of state by its very nature cannot be subject to God nor indeed can be without BEING CHANGED from that state to the OPPOSITE STATE and that OPPOSITE state IS regeneration.

This verse does not contradict our position at all as we fully believe that God uses instrumental means to bring the gospel to the minds of men but only God can transform the hearts of men.

This is as true now with REGENERATE beleivers as then. This condition is expanded in Romans 7:14-25 and repeated in Galatians 5:16 and is the daily condition of all of God's people.

I am arguing for regeneration. Right now I could care less about indwelling, but regeneration or circumcision of the heart is the transformation work of God since the garden of Eden without which there can be no salvation of any sinner at any time because the problem is INTERNAL not external. John 3:3-10rebukes any Bible teacher who denies this is a universal truth in both Old and New Testament times.

 

Allot as far as Im concerned personally. But it isnt critical to the conservation. Thanks for sharing though.

 

Oh, because you were in the military that makes you better than others?

I got married when I was 20, my first child was born on my 22nd birthday. I raised 8 kids. I worked 65-80 hours a week for years. I think that is pretty tough, how about you?

I am thankful you served in the military, my Dad and three of his brothers served in WWII, my brother was in the Army.

I just happened to be real busy doing other things at that time.

 

Touchy arent you :laugh: Have you had your blood pressure checked lately?

 

Actually, I do have high blood pressure. And certain persons can make it rise.

Tell me, where were you stationed, and what years did you serve? What was your job in the service?

 

Infantry & many places NC, Korea, Viet Nam, Okinawa, with short periods at a variety of other locations abroad ... some that do not require dialog.

 

How old are you?

 

There are some things you shouldnt ask a lady!:smilewinkgrin: