what the hell do you think i mean! How do you expect someone who is brain damaged to respond.....they are entombed in inability. Unless you know something that I dont know.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jerry Walls wicked and profane question about God
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
is that Scandlion?
Yes it would be......would save me allot of sleepless nights. But I cant ignore it, I have loved ones who's eternity rests on the answer. And that was one of the reasons Im not an Orthodox Presbyterian today.
so let me get this straight, you would prefer that god did not intervene with your desire to go to hell? Is that correct? Do you believe in Total depravity?
Yes, I do think it is.
He drifted some years ago and continues to do so, (imo).
It is unfortunate, and yet not such an uncommon occurrence.
That he embraces a person such as Jerry Walls is further evidence that the downward spiral into ultimate ruin has begun, and sadly he doesn't even know it is happening.
Again, this is merely my opinion, and though it may change in the evidence of further investigation, I don't expect such to occur any more than I expect Leighton Flowers to recant.
Popularity is and has been his god for some time, and he didn't deal with it when he fellowshipped with the "big boys" in Calvinism, and continues to refuse to deal with it in the realms he is currently frothing and floundering.
Popularity must also exist with ultimate personal control over destiny, significance gained by recognition and achievements, and the building of a power base to maintain both the popularity and the control.
He has been from decades ago, caught up in such trappings and snares, and yet has never come to realize the plight and will not until he is devoured.
Again, merely my own opinion, and I would rejoice if such appointments are found to be erroneous.
I remain unable to post further.
I would not refer, nor do I look upon, all of God’s creatures as His “children” in order to avoid getting into "issues" (semantic ambiguity distractions) which only serve to deter from the legitimate question of how a Calvinist logically holds to God's unquestionable justice, while I hold to maintaining His Omniscience against rhetorical Calvinist’ arguments of God being a hater and the creator of evil in the common arguments between that of Determinism vs Free Will as it applies to His true judgment, justice and Omniscience along with the logical necessity of holding to His genuine offer of grace to all His creatures in order to avoid Theological Fatalism, which Calvinist often find themselves falling into on this subject.
"Earth Wind and Fire,
Well you tell me...let's look at what YOU ACTUALLY POSTED before you tried to change it...
You posted this In which you start off asking a Question;;;
Does God...see it...you are asking Does God-
let's see what you suggest that God DOES
1]take a human being....so you have God "taking a human being"...to do what?
2] entombed them in inability???when does God do any such thing???
3]punish them on this earth
4] then send them to hell
you posted this, not me...so I asked you did Adam sin in the garden, or was God responsible for Adam's sin? My understanding is Adam sinned and all sinned in Adam at that one point in time...bringing all manner of sin, disease, and a curse on all of creation.
So your original post was bogus.
I said no such thing....but if asked I would have given the confessional response which is the only correct response.....Reformed already gave it...
3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
Well you tell me...let's look at what YOU ACTUALLY POSTED before you tried to change it...
You posted this In which you start off asking a Question;;;
Does God...see it...you are asking Does God-
let's see what you suggest that God DOES
1]take a human being....so you have God "taking a human being"...to do what?
2] entombed them in inability
???when does God do any such thing???3]punish them on this earth
4] then send them to hell
you posted this, not me...so I asked you did Adam sin in the garden, or was God responsible for Adam's sin? My understanding is Adam sinned and all sinned in Adam at that one point in time...bringing all manner of sin, disease, and a curse on all of creation.
So your original post was bogus.
I said no such thing....but if asked I would have given the confessional response which is the only correct response.....Reformed already gave it...
3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
Last edited:
Thank you for being objective enough not to buy Jerry Walls error....
Now when we can get you to reconsider your idea that fatalism, is anything like calvinism...then more progress can take place....
Calvinism rightly understood is the only correct antidote for Fatalism.
You might want to consider that the logic of Calvinist philosophy always leads into Theology Fatalism despite their futile attempts of injecting compatibility upon logically mutually exclusive principles such as Determinism and Free Will. But good luck with that…
Spurgeon comes very close to saying to saying the same in his appeal to "come and drink freely".
You might want to consider that the logic of Calvinist philosophy always leads into Theology Fatalism despite their futile attempts of injecting compatibility upon logically mutually exclusive principles such as Determinism and Free Will. But good luck with that…
I never use all that philosophical jargon. When you use scripture it is Calvinism that Jesus taught.
James Otto,
the biblical language is of a great multitude no man can number.
It does not have anything to do with assurance of salvation.
That is not the teaching;
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3;Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )
3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )
first read some calvinists and see what they really teach...that would be the scriptures.
Calvinism is just a name for the biblical teaching....No one ever called it Jesusism....Calvin saw the teaching in his bible and wrote many things...
It is not as much a philosophy as it is biblical teaching.
When you go on anti cal sites they say such things as....a select few...
the biblical language is of a great multitude no man can number.
It does not have anything to do with assurance of salvation.
That is not the teaching;
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3;Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )
3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )
We are commanded to as God uses gospel means.
it is not by the will of man
no one is saved against their own will...
first read some calvinists and see what they really teach...that would be the scriptures.
You don’t show the conversation I was having with Willis so your interpretation is faulty right from the beginning. Willis believes that the gospel must be taught to anyone prior to salvation as a prerequisite to salvation and I asked him how he would do that to a already dead infant or a brain damaged person. So you are saying an elect child does not have to have the gospel preached to them. I am fine with that. Also then the Presbyterians are doctrinally wrong, right? You don’t have to be a member of their church or jump the Pedo Baptist sacrament garbage right! I’m cool with that. Thanks for the schooling."Earth Wind and Fire,
Well you tell me...let's look at what YOU ACTUALLY POSTED before you tried to change it...
You posted this In which you start off asking a Question;;;
Does God...see it...you are asking Does God-
let's see what you suggest that God DOES
1]take a human being....so you have God "taking a human being"...to do what?
2] entombed them in inability
3]punish them on this earth
4] then send them to hell
you posted this, not me...so I asked you did Adam sin in the garden, or was God responsible for Adam's sin? My understanding is Adam sinned and all sinned in Adam at that one point in time...bringing all manner of sin, disease, and a curse on all of creation.
So your original post was bogus.
I said no such thing....but if asked I would have given the confessional response which is the only correct response.....Reformed already gave it...
3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
Define Calvinism? Presbyterian Calvinism, Dutch Reformed, Reformed?
It doesn't matter the learning ability of anyone, whether they be Albert Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Pope Francis, Sigmund Freud, &c. It takes God to enable them to come to Him to begin with.
Willis is speaking of the normal way God reaches normal, regular persons through the preaching of the word.
The confession is speaking of those who cannot be reached by the normal means.....so it covers all persons.
The confession is speaking of those who cannot be reached by the normal means.....so it covers all persons.
Iconoclast wrote:
“bluejx,
“Hello BX, thanks for your response and clarification.
Most who attempt to object to Calvinism...actually object to a caricature of the teaching most times found on misguided anti cal websites.”
Actually, I don't recall ever visiting an anti cal website. My perception of Calvinism is derived from discussions with Calvinists of varying stripes, hypers, non-hypers, infra & supralapsarian and diehard determinist. Which of these describes your persuasion?
“Here is what we believe the bible teaches...in part-
Chapter 3: Of God's Decree
1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel
of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes
to pass:a yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is
violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or con-
tingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c
Thank for posting the excerpt from the WCF. Although, I think this one partial excerpt suffices for the topic at hand. I personally find it problematic from a logical perspective. But I must admit that has to do with the definitions of the words “decree” and “ordain” along with the concept and extent of the word “predestination”. Perhaps you’d like to take a stab at clarifying their meanings.
From my puely logical perspective if God ordained (in my mind predestined by decree) whatsoever (in my mind all) that comes to pass then the clause, "yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures;" is incongruous; meaning: if the first clause is true (that He ordained whatsoever comes to pass) the second clause can't be also true.
No justification that I can find is given for the second clause.
Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
But that's where I am uneasy. We see that the saved are saved via the gospel. Now, I agree that babies and those incapable of answering for themselves are still fallen in Adam. So, I am not saying they'll end up in hell, but I am also not swinging the pendulum to the other side and giving them an automatic passage into heaven, either.
I understand the message the 1689 is conveying, but I am not sure that explains it either.
I’m afraid you fail to recognize that the 1689 LBC you continually reference is merely a philosophical construct involving theories of compatibilism which try to logically justify Deterministic views of the scriptures. And your close and blindly faithful adherence to these writer's philosophical interpretations of the scriptures typically tends to to lead you to beg the question of their, and Calvinisms', accuracy in so far as it seems you put these men's philosophy on an equal footing with scriptural revelation.
That is another issue and one that has some validity.
Just to point out that they are reformed from catholic dogma and doctrine. If you follow Willis, he could very well be introducing Limbo and Perogation into the discussion and isn’t that a catholic doctrine?"LOVE TO KILL THEM" -- Calvinist Jesus
Also the Reformers claim that the they are spinoffs of the Catholic Church thus they are Protestants. They have even written several lovely Confessions of Faith to explain their beliefs in large detail... but I don’t see it following Popes and magistrates although Presbyterians and other Reformed churches have adopted infant baptisms and Covenant theology which I find disturbing on a few levels.
- Status