Featured For the Truth Seeker

Adam had real free will agency to decide to obey the Lord or not, as he had nothing in him to impair doing that!

After the fall, NONE of us still retained that option to obey fully, as we all had now the sin nature...

 

Calvinists constantly slander opponents with charges and innuendos, as can be seen in the second quote, yet then deny it, as can be seen in the first quote.

Again, to give, grant or allow is not to prohibit, block or disallow. So here again, we have Calvinism redefining the meaning of a word pour Calvinism into the text. If the Father does not harden our hearts, as He did the unbelieving Jews in Romans 11, then He can be said to give, grant or allow someone to choose to trust in Christ. At John 6:65, we have Judas in view as the one not allowed to believe because he was chosen from the beginning to be the betrayer.

Nope it strengthens my view. If Total Spiritual Inability were true, God would not need to harden hearts, in Romans 11.

If God grants something He gives it, or allows it, and does not prohibit or preclude it. Enable by Irresistible Grace is not the meaning of the word, it is a Calvinist mistranslation, to pour Calvinism into the text.

 

Brother Van, perhaps you and Bosley need to hash this out privately so as to keep the discussion on task? For the record, I've yet to hear RC Sproul slander anybody. Just from observing your posts, you seem to have a lot of venom stored up for Calvinists. Understand something: There are those who call themselves "Calvinists" who love Jesus Christ just as much as you do. As such, are they not your brothers?

I realize that C vs A is and ought to be an in-house debate.
Having said that, I am sure saying "Calvinists constantly slander opponents..." is adding gasoline instead of water. Do you mean ALL Calvinists? When you say "constantly", do you mean to say that slander is their only means of communication?

 

1) Your whole post is addressing perceived flaws in my character, not the topic of this thread. Thus it seeks to avoid discussion of the topic and shift it to my supposed flawed character.

2) I did not say nor imply R.C Sproul slandered me, but I did say he rewrite John 1:11-13 in light of Calvinist doctrine.

3) I have no venom stored up toward Calvinists, but I do believe Calvinism is mistaken unbiblical doctrine, and I see the Calvinists who post on this forum seeking to obfuscate discussion of the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism with subject change efforts, such as slander of folks holding non-Cal views.
I documented the slander of RLB in my prior post.

4) To pretend the behavior is not happening continually is to deny truth.

5) To suggest I do not see Calvinists as saved, born anew brothers in Christ, is yet another slander, this time by you.
Why not address the topic of the thread??

 

According to Calvinism, no unregenerate person would seek God or trust in Christ because of their Total Spiritual Inability, at any time. This is mistaken doctrine, because Matthew 23:13 teaches men were actually "entering heaven" and so were seeking God and trusting in Christ to some limited degree, yet were blocked by false teachings. They could not have been under the compulsion of Irresistible grace, because they were blocked. So this one verse clearly teaches both the T and the I of the Tulip are mistaken doctrines.

But will this be discussed, or will the wholesale Van bashing continue unabated? Care to make a guess?

 

Here's a scripture passage I'd like some exegesis on.
Romans 8:7-8

I've bolded the words which raise the question of ability, and seem to cast doubt on the idea of free will.

Release the hounds!

 

Van, we ALL have a flawed character. You and ne included. I'm trying to be nice and say "can you tone it down? Not all Calvinists are slanderers." I don't know how you got that I'm suggesting Sproul slandered you at all. I'm trying to provide you with an example of a Calvinist who does NOT use slander to teach Reformed theology. And I want you to know, I'm NOT a Calvinist, but I'm willing to learn from them. That's all. And BTW, I'm not suggesting whether or not you think they are saved: I'm asking if you consider them as brothers and you never answered. Anyway, my questions in paragraph 2 still stand as you have not answered them. I was trying to be nice and all it seems you did was see it as an attack and then fire back. No, I'm no "Let's bash Van" type of person. But by the same token, I'm not a "Calvinists can't really win debate so they resort to constantly slandering opponents" type of person. Just trying to help.

 

the guy has a spiritual issue.
and a complex.
he is so full of hatred, and paranoia, that any post, no matter how much the poster tries to be civil and gentle, he will interpret as Van-bashing.

 

What Greek tools would you use to help in exegeting this text?

 

He seems to hold that calvinists teach a different Gospel, and always wondered if he saw us all as Brothers in Christ!

 

The exegetical issue is "the mind that is set on the flesh" which may mean, as the Calvinist doctrine teaches, an unregenerate cannot set his or her mind on anything else, such as some spiritual things, spiritual milk, so to speak. On the other hand, can the lost set their minds on righteousness, God, sinful behavior and spiritual milk some of the time. Picture the Rich Young Ruler seeking eternal life.

The issue is not that people cannot look to God with their mind set on the flesh, but whether they can set their minds elsewhere some of the time.

So lets take a look at Romans 8:5, For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. (ESV) Here we see that natural unregenerate folks can shift the setting of our mind, i.e. they can set or focus their mind on either fleshly desires, or some of the things of the Spirit, i.e. spiritual milk. So the idea is not a fixed state of mind, but only the consequence of us setting our minds on the flesh, or on the world, which also produces hostility toward God.

 

That is a word game.

The Arminian means the "Free will to choose the Gospel or choose to sin or choose not to sin" as in "really".

As opposed to - no free will only the predetermined directive from on high - followed at every step lost or saved.

The 4 and 5 point Calvinists will argue that the lost only want to sin so they sin of their free will. That is a circular argument trying to stick the term "free will" in the middle of what Paul calls slavery to sin.

in Christ,

Bob

 

In Romans 8 Paul says the lost cannot submit to the LAW of God - but He does not say that God cannot draw the lost and that they cannot then choose the Gospel even while unable to resist sin as a lost person.


Rom 8
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

1) You continue to change the subject to my character. Strike one.

2) The Calvinists who post on this forum do slander non-Cals, as I documented. To deny it is to deny truth.

3) You say you are not a Calvinist, so which of the five points of the TULIP do you say are mistaken doctrines?

4) All born anew believers are brothers of every other born anew believer.

5) I mean what I say, and I say what I mean. For you to suggest I mean something else, something godless, is once again to slander me with innuendo.

6) Lets review, it has been suggested I am not willing to discuss doctrine honestly. It has been said I think my poo does not stink. That I am ignorant, arrogant, driven by hate, and so forth. Yet you, 76, suggest I am not continually slandered by Calvinists. Give me a break.

 

“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” -Emmerson.

Van, I'm not slandering you...just asking questions...so give ME a break as well. Or I'm going to have call YOUR inference of my slandering you thru innuendo as slandering me....see how that works? We could do this all day. I'd rather not. I ask a question and you answer with a "you are slandering me" response which is indicative of a persecution complex, IMO. I bet I could ask you "Do you know the capitol of Indiana?" and the answer I'd get from you is "How dare you think I don't know the capitol of Indiana?!You are slandering my thru innuendo that I'm geographically-challenged!"

Regarding TULIP:
Since TULIP is a quick, 5-point response to Arminianism, I'm not in a position to fairly agree or disagree with any of the points. But, you'll be *HAPPY* to know that I'm reading Calvin's Institutes so that I may think upon it and make an informed decision. I wonder how many take the time to read it?

 

You have got to love them folks, shuck and then jive.

1) Asking questions suggests outcome. "Have you not slandered me by XYZ," suggests I have been slandered, but it was only a question.

2) To suggest that I do not consider Calvinists my brothers by asking if I see them as my brothers is slander by innuendo.

3) Next I have a persecution complex. More slander but cloaked in a suggested possibility.

4) Then the old put words in my mouth to build the strawman of my flawed character. Go figure.

5) Finally, we have the "I am not a Calvinist," yet has no opinion as to the truth of any point of the TULIP. Shuck and jive, folks, shuck and jive.

At the end of the day, Calvinists continue to slander me in post after post, and no Calvinist objects. Go figure, they cannot defend their views so they use logical fallacy (argue against the man) to change the subject. If it walks like a duck...

 

I didn't suggest ANYTHING, Van. I asked you a question. If YOU read slander into it, that is YOUR doing.

I said that in my opinion you had one. IN. MY. OPINION.

I never did that and you know it.

I explained this already, Van, KNOWING you'd say something like this. Did u read the rest of what I said about the brevity of TULIP and that I was reserving judgement until I complete Calvin's Institutes?

What do you mean by "shuck and jive", Van?

 

How dare you challenge the great chevy Van........


He "shucks and jives" all the time, and then accuses others....

 

Hmm... Jkdbuck76 is reading through Calvin's Institutes so that he may think and reason about its contents and thus arrive at an informed decision. Does that sound like a process Van would be willing to undertake?