question from agnostic

OK. But it is often used to try to prove Calvinism. I and most of the rest of us believe God is in control, but then the way this is asked to us, like it is something we don't like, is often taken from an assumption that non-Calvinists don't believe God is n control, and from that, it is presumed it is because they don't like God being in control. But God being "in control" in that case is often being defined in terms of Calvinistic concepts.

No, I wasn't saying that you were bashing me. You had made a general statement that people were bashing "the truth" (or something like that), meaning Calvinistic doctrine. I was pointing out that Calvinists have done more than their share of "bashing" the other side, though I do believe the way some of those posters responded was a bit over the line.

How far back do you go? I go all the way back to the old CvsA forum, with Pastor Larry as the Mod, and all the battles we used to have then. Then, it died down somewhat, and then was removed. I know Bob was there, but I don't remember you so much, or perhaps from the very end of the old forum.

And yes, Bob tries to cut to the chase and will recast what you say to its underlying meaning (or what he thinks is its underlying meaning). You should see the battles we've had over the OT Law, and he currently also goes against us in Eternal Security and faith/works discussions (basically siding with those nasty Catholics. Shame!!! )
So what he was saying about "man being God" is the same point I made briefly. Calvinism frequently appeals to some higher knowledge that man can't understand, when trying to argue on God's decrees (such as who is saved and why). You tried to get around it by suggesting God's language of love for man is only something he does because we understand it. This would lead one to conclude that it is not really real, but only illusory.
I really have nothing to argue on that, but that is what Bob is trying to point out.
(You two even seem made for each other!)

It's not election per-se I (and many others) don't like; it's the assumption that true election means that God deliberately rejects certain people from any chance of salvation, and the bending of certain passages (like Rom.9 and Dan.4) to support it. This (How God saves, in our time frame, from His, which is outside of time, while giving man choice, and yet being sovereign) is what I believe is the knowledge too great for us.

 

I do not agree with dragging anything from Ellen White into the discussion as that only serves to derail the current topic.

My approach is the same one that the SDA 27 (now 28) Fundamental Beliefs document uses for doctrinal discussion - sola-scriptura. All doctrinal statements must be tested by the Bible alone. They stand or fall on the Bible alone.

If you think that something I am saying is not supported in the Bible - then being able to make that case is all you have to do.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Picking up where I left off --

Here is a good thread to see that in living color --
http://www.spurgeon.us/forums/index.php?a=topic&t=874&f=26&min=15&num=15

James then pretends that this oft repeated line of questioning in Calvinist circles never existed (that link above debunking that conjecture before it gets started in this case)

I am happy to have obliged.

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Hi Bob,

I went to the link and read most of the tread. There are things I do not agree with, as you know from my other post. But I still did not see the person making statemenst as if they were a little god. Rather then me looking for that line you had in mind, why not post the line so that I can see it. Deal?


In Christ..James

 

[/QUOTE]I do not agree with dragging anything from Ellen White into the discussion as that only serves to derail the current topic.

My approach is the same one that the SDA 27 (now 28) Fundamental Beliefs document uses for doctrinal discussion - sola-scriptura. All doctrinal statements must be tested by the Bible alone. They stand or fall on the Bible alone.

If you think that something I am saying is not supported in the Bible - then being able to make that case is all you have to do.

In Christ,

Bob [/QB][/QUOTE]

Bob,

I hope you understand why i ask that. That post of doctrine made the other day was in a attack on the very Deity of Christ, and could have very well been pulled from a JW book of doctrine. I know it was off subject, however I could not sit back and let that one go, without asking and it was not I that posted it. You were addressed with the poster, for the poster seemed to be pulling ALL in from the SDA faith. I am also aware that there are at least 2 "factions" for lack of a better word within the SDA.

One day when I have more time I will start a tread to address that post.

In Christ…James

 

Hey Eric,

You were saying about romans 9....
[/QUOTE]OK. But it is often used to try to prove Calvinism. I and most of the rest of us believe God is in control, but then the way this is asked to us, like it is something we don't like, is often taken from an assumption that non-Calvinists don't believe God is n control, and from that, it is presumed it is because they don't like God being in control. But God being "in control" in that case is often being defined in terms of Calvinistic concepts.

How far back do you go? I go all the way back to the old CvsA forum, with Pastor Larry as the Mod, and all the battles we used to have then. Then, it died down somewhat, and then was removed. I know Bob was there, but I don't remember you so much, or perhaps from the very end of the old forum.

 

If there is a new subject thread on the deity of Christ I am happy to post on it from the Bible.

If that subject thread turns to "why SDA doctrine affirms the deity of Christ" I am happy to provide quotes etc.

But all that is "another thread" - as they say.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "predictable" question is asked on that thread that is of the form - "IF God knows everything then how can there be free will" where the idea is to try and be "God enough" to figure out how He does it. Then when the Calvinist can not do it - they conclude "neither can God".

I simply point out - that if that reasoning were valid - then even Christ Himself did not have free will.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "predictable" question is asked on that thread that is of the form - "IF God knows everything then how can there be free will" where the idea is to try and be "God enough" to figure out how He does it. Then when the Calvinist can not do it - they conclude "neither can God".

I simply point out - that if that reasoning were valid - then even Christ Himself did not have free will.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

Sometimes the best wisdom can be shown with a simple "i do not know". We get so caught up in understand "all", that at times we pass over the crossing of limited human understanding we just addressed and into a world of man made feelings based on what we WANT the Bible to say. I have caught myself a few times looking for a way to prove my faith, and not let the Holy Spirit lead me to understanding. I then had to step back and wait on the Lord ask forgiveness and try the best I can to remove all of James thoughts and replace them with a teachable heart.

There were a few post on that link that I did not care for. But this is not the 1st time i have read something stupid on this subject. As you have address this "little god", I would say that both sides do this. Bare with me as I give you a few cases.

"Why would God elect some into His Family and let others go on down the path that will lead them to hell? If God is a God of Love, He would not do this."

The above statement has been repeated time and time again by many that does hold to election. If you show them Bible verse, they change the meaning into other things ..out of context..in the end rewrite the Bible in order to make it say what THEY feel. At some point one must just say..."I DO NOT KNOW how this fits".

Some have called election a mystery and for only God to understand, and be blasted by the other side for they say that is a cop out. In turn...they change the meaning.


"God would never save us and keep us saved. That is not fair to those that are good yet unsaved, nor does it jive with the holy living and the law of the Bible"

No matter how many verse you pull out on this, some do not agree for it seems unlogical for God to do this. If a person sins...and sins again and again he needs to go!! That is the way we think. But the Bible says Gods ways are not mans ways.

If I were God, I would have saved the life of Jim Elliot. I'm sure you have heard of Jim Elliot. He was a missionary out serveing the Lord...for he saw a people that needed Christ. Those people, the Auca Indians shot down Jims plane. Do you not think that Jim called out to the Lord to save his life...as his plane headed down? I'm sure he did. Why did not God save him? If I were God.."with my limited human understanding"...I would have saved jim. He was doing the Lords work. But i'm not God and God knows what He is doing.

Ted Bundy said he was saved the last year before they put him to death for killing and raping many ladies. Many of the young ladies life he took, were unsaved. He killed them before they heard the good news of the Bible and never knew of God. Now...he is saved and in heaven? Is that fair? Well...if ted really did take Christ into his life, he is in heaven and someday i'll call him brother jim

Human understanding can only go as far as God has told us about his plan. There are many things I do not understand, I just have to have faith in God.

I have more to write..but i need to get back to work.


In Chist..James

 

Here is a simple case of miscommunication

Although I agree with the "I don't know" solution for many cases - the scenario above is missing a critical point that is key to the entire debate.

In the case above the Arminian does not simply say "I don't think it is fair for God to choose some and not others" while the Calvinist says "yes but if you ever were to read the Bible then you would see that though this makes no sense to human understanding it is exactly what the Bible says about God and salvation".

INSTEAD of that what we REALLY see is the Arminian saying "Hey look at all these Bible texts SHOWING God to be impartial and being the saviour of the world - dying not only for our sins but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. Truly God so loved the WORLD not just the arbitrarily select FEW of Matt 7!!"

While the Calvinist says "yes but if you ignore those texts I have found a couple of places where it looks like God is saying that He simply picks out a select few and not for any reason that can be found IN the person selected. Nothing about what they choose or like or who they are etc. God just innexplicably picks one".

To which the Arminian replies - that would be "arbitrary selection" in it's purest form -- not fitting with any of the texts I have given on God so loving the world".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi ya Bob,

James..
I’ll give you this. My post had no details, nor proof, or even argument for that matter. It was simple in its approach to show that both sides do in fact go beyond specifics of Bible doctrine and into a world as they see it. I brought this up, only for you act as if only Calvinist are the only ones that do this. You called it ..”being a little god”. It is clear that any one that holds to any doctrine can cross this line and should not be limited to Calvinist.

*************************

Bob..
INSTEAD of that what we REALLY see is the Arminian saying "Hey look at all these Bible texts SHOWING God to be impartial and being the saviour of the world - dying not only for our sins but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. Truly God so loved the WORLD not just the arbitrarily select FEW of Matt 7!!"

James…
Yes we do see Arminian’s pointing out these verses. Many, many verse they are. You are also right in your claim that they use the words “Impartial” as speaking to who God is….and Arbitrarily selecting would be NOTHING God would do. This is Arminianism 101. Look at Gods Love. Gods love is Great. I say this not in jest, but as fact. Gods love is great and These verses prove it. One other thing you will see from the Aminian camp is this…THE WHOLE WORLD. This is always in bold…or underlined like a Calvinist can not read it. I think this maybe the verse you had in mind Bob..

John 2,2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

If this is the verse, this is also why I disagree with what you said Bob. More on that later. But because you misused one verse does not mean Gods love is not great…and has Come that ALL…YES ALL BOB can be saved…if they trust in Him.
********************

Bob..
While the Calvinist says "yes but if you ignore those texts I have found a couple of places where it looks like God is saying that He simply picks out a select few and not for any reason that can be found IN the person selected. Nothing about what they choose or like or who they are etc. God just innexplicably picks one".

James…

Bob again you mislead. Ignoring the Bible is not a trend of Calvinist as you claim. Can you find some that say this? Yes I’m sure you can. For the most part Calvinist uphold the whole Bible. You have brought these verse up to me before and I addressed them the best I could. I have also seen others address them for you Bob. Now, it maybe that you do not like how that it can be shown how the Bible fits together, for then it leaves some of what you hold dearly to in the rain. Ignore? No, that is wrong Bob.

Texts in a couple of places? Two places, is that it Bob? Is this also misleading? How many times does the Bible say God choose a nation? More then one time. Wait you may claim, “God does choose groups, but never people”. Lets stay on that subject for a bit. Does God choose a nation? Yes indeed. Is this as you call it…” Arbitrarily”? Did God have other men to chose from other then Abarham. Yes! He had the pool of mankind to choose from. So he did pick a person over another to start a nation, a choosen people. Even if it is only a nation, we have shown that God can choose one, and leave another and a nation started with one person which God chose. You have said God could never do this for this is out of Gods character. We need only show this is part of Gods character. But again, this is not Arbitrarily as you claim. The Bible tells us why God does this choosing. So stop saying it is arbitrarily. You would not want to mislead would you Bob?

Now we have just talked about a nation, but we both know there is more to election then a nation. This (nation) as said before is also known as Group election or Corporate election.

Have you heard this phase before..

”the word “elect” was used, only groups were in view; ergo, election is only corporate.”

That view has been regarded by linguists and biblical scholars as linguistically naive. James Barr in his Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961) makes a lengthy and devastating critique of Kittel’s ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament for its numerous linguistic fallacies. Among them is this conceptual-lexical equation.

Conceptual-lexical equation means that one does not find the concept unless he sees the words. However, where else do we argue this? Would we not say that the concept of fellowship occurs everwhere in the New Testament?
Yet the word koinwniva is found only twenty times.

Now consider the deity of Christ….
If we could only speak of Christ’s deity in passages where he is explicitly called “God,” then we are shut up to no more than about half a dozen texts. Yet the New Testament WREAKS of the deity of Christ—via his actions, attributes that are ascribed to him, Old Testament quotations made of him, implicit and explicit statements made about him.

Going back to the conceptual-lexical equation for a moment: let’s look at the evidence.

Mark 13:20—“but for the sake of the elect whom he chose he has cut short those days.” If we take only a corporate view of election, this would mean “but for the sake of all humanity he has cut short those days.” That hardly makes any sense in the passage; further, election is doubly emphasized: the elect whom he chose. It would be hard to make any clearer the idea that election is of individuals.

Luke 6:13; John 6:70—Jesus chose twelve of his disciples out of a larger pool. True, he chose more than one; but this also was of particular individuals. Jesus named them individually, indicating that his choice of them was individual. This election was not toward salvation, as we see in John 6:70. But this election was entirely initiated by Jesus (“you did not choose me, but I chose you”). Initiation and selection are the prerogatives of the Lord. Group election makes absolutely no sense in this context; and further, the elective purposes and methods of God incarnate are the same, whether it is of his apostles for service or of sinners for salvation.

Luke 9:35—“This is my Son, my Chosen One.” Certainly election of Christ is both individual and corporate: Christ as the elect of God (see also at John 1:34 the textual variant that is most likely original, and is the text reading of the NET Bible) is the vehicle through whom God effects his elective purposes today. That is, God chooses those who would be saved, but he also chooses the means of that salvation: it is in Christ (see also Eph 1:4).

John 15:16—“You did not choose me, but I chose you.” Again, we see that election is done by the initiative of God. Further, those who are chosen become what they are chosen for (in this case, apostles). A view of group election that allows a large pool of applicants to be “chosen” then permits a self-selection to narrow the candidates seems to ignore both God’s initiative and the efficacy of God’s choice: all those who are chosen become what they are chosen for.

John 15:19—“I chose you out of the world.” The same theme is repeated: election may have many individuals in view, but the initiative and efficacy belong to the Lord.

Acts 1:2—same idea as above.

Acts 1:24—This text reveals a choice of one individual as opposed to another. The apostles vote on which of two candidates they had put in the pool would fill Judas’ spot. But even their choice is dictated by the mandate of heaven: “Show us which one you have chosen.”

Acts 15:7—Peter notes that God had selected him to bring the good news to the Gentiles. Again, though this is not election to salvation, it is election that is initiated by God and effected by God (for, as you recall, Peter was quite resistant to the idea).

Election is seen to be initiated by God and effected by God. Those who are chosen...whether individuals or groups...become what they are chosen for. Corporate election simply ignores this consistent biblical emphasis.

When we look at the broader issue and involve words other than from the ejkleg— word-group, we see that the concept of God’s initiation and efficacy is very clear. For example, in Acts 13:48 we read that .....“as many as had been appointed for eternal life believed.” This is a group within the group that heard the message. The passive pluperfect periphrastic hsan tetagmevnoi indicates both that the initiative belonged to someone else and that it had already been accomplished before they believed.

This leads to the issue of election in relation to depravity. The basic point is that if we cannot take one step toward God (Rom 3:10-13), if we are unable to respond to anything outside the realm of sin (Eph 2:1), then if anyone is ever to get saved, God must take the initiative. This initiative cannot be simply corporate; he must initiate in the case of each individual. Eph 2:1-10 is explicitly about God’s initiation in the case of individual believers; this sets the stage for 2:11-22 in which corporate election is seen. But there can be no corporate election unless there is first individual election. Corporate election, at bottom, is a denial of total depravity. Or, to put it another way, if corporate election is true and if total depravity is true, then no one will ever get saved because no one will ever freely choose to be in Christ. Only by the gracious initiative of God does anyone ever choose Christ.

This only addresses Groups for this is what you hold to if I remember right. This in no way shows all verses that tell us about God's election. But still, this is more then 2 places right? And again, mainly addressing groups.


In Christ…James

 

hello?

 

Rom 2:11-13 "There is NO Partiality with God"

And also Romans 2:11-13 as it turns out. The point being that in your earlier characterization you make it appear that the Calvinist uses the Bible to support his views but the Arminian simply rejects the bible saying "yes but that makes no sense to me".

I show that the critical error in your view is clearly seen by observing that the Arminians are in fact quoting text after inconvenient text to show how the Arminian view is the clear teaching of scripture.

Good because "God so loved the WORLD" and the Arminian simply says "YES really!".

that is the difference between the Arminian view and the 4 and 5 point Calvinist view.

"God so loved The World" - Yes really.

1John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" NIV

If only you really did accept that Bible truth --

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is the classic "if there is air then Calvinism must be true no matter what the bible says" argument. It does not last long.

1Cor 12 shows the Spirit making choices for spiritual gifts. But that choice does not negate the statement of God "BEHOLD I stand at the door and knock if anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL COME IN". Rev 3

God "on the outside" -- man alone "on the inside" and God stating that the decision must be made by the one on the inside to open the door.

That Arminian scenario is perfectly stated in Rev 3!! It can not be "refuted" simply on the basis of an argument that says "YES but Jesus God's Son is the chosen Messiah - so Arminian views in places like Rev 3 can not be true"

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ah yes...the door of rev 3.

"BEHOLD I stand at the door and knock if anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL COME IN". Rev 3

Did you know Bob that there are more doors then this one you always bring up? The key to understanding the door you like to talk about...is you must understand all the doors. Yet you NEVER say anything about the other doors. Why is this?


Here is some home work for you. Study the full chapter and tell us about all the doors...and how they work together.

Remember..context is KING

In Christ..James

 

He knows this Jim...its been pointed out to him many times. Bob likes to read the Bible in his own way...hit, hit, a skip...and jump to here. Never gives context a thought

 

Rev 3:20 is addressed to a church in name only, composed of gnostic unbelievers mainly. While the offer is made to the "church", logic dictates that if the "church" is composed of unbelievers, the offer extends to them, making Rev 3:20 to individuals, too. I actually agree with John Macarthur's commentary on Rev 3:20, and the Church at Laodicea in general. Notice the "buy from me's" in verse 18. He was offering the Spiritual counterparts to their 3 major industires.

 

The principle has moved to one that is general - and not some special dispensation/treatment that only applies to the Laodiceans. Those whom God loves He disciplines (disciples) Heb 12, John 15, Rev 3:19

And in keeping with that general case we have Christ continuing to speak – to the SAME group and showing that this is a personal – direct message..

Here we see the case of those NOT in UNION with Christ – NOT in fellowship with Christ. As even some Calvinists will admit – regeneration is the first point where a person IS in union with Christ.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1533.html#000005

The case is made that the same “anyone” that is instructed to “open the door” is the SAME “anyone” that WILL receive the benefit of immediate fellowship with Christ (I will dine WITH him and he WITH Me). Here is picture “union WITH Christ” – following as a result of the choice to open the door.

Many reject the idea that those being addressed in Rev 3 could possibly be OUT of union with Christ”. They shrink from thinking that the sinner is “alone and without UNION with Christ” on the INSIDE while Christ is on the OUTSIDE! The reject this because “Calvinism” needs to avoid this “inconvenient detail” of scripture..

Yet we see “in the text” that each individual must HEAR and OPEN the door and then to each ONE that does – the RESULT will be that immediate fellowship that is promised. This is not a case of those ALREADY in fellowship with Christ and “inside the church” being promised that they WILL be in fellowship if they only open the door. Rather it is a promise to the condemned of Vs 17 that THIS action will result in the INDIVIDUAL being IN fellowship The propitiation (atoning sacrifice) of Christ provides the currency in "suffering" owed by all lost humanity - but God holds application of that currency by His OWN rules - to "Whosoever Will" saying "I STAND at the door and KNOCK if anyone HEARS my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL come IN" Rev 3:21.

Fortunately Calvinists like John MacArthur seem to “get the point” about UNION with Christ NOT being defined as “the sinner alone on the inside WITHOUT Christ while Christ is on the OUTSIDE knocking and waiting for the sinner to open the door”

Here's what John Macarthur (calvinist) says

From MacArthur's study Bible comments on Rev 3, page 1997.


The conditions are clear - God is not fire-hosing us with payment of our debt. Rather the blood of Christ - and suffering for our sins is carefully treasured - held for us to claim "IF we CONFESS our sins HE IS faithful and just to FORGIVE us our sins AND to CLEANSE us from ALL unrighteousness".

It could not BE any clearer.

Instead of avoiding the details - glossing over them and ignoring them -- embrace them!

#1. CHrist on the OUTSIDE - lost humanity alone on the INSIDE.
#2. Christ is not opening the door - He is only knocking and waiting. (Drawing ALL mankind unto Him)
#3. The invitation is in the form of a knock - NOT in the form of OPENING the door and coming in but WAITING and knocking!

The gating action is very simple. Having STARTED with Christ taking the inititiative and knocking - the NEXT gate is "IF ANY of mankind" alone and on the inside WITHOUT Chirst -- chooses to hear AND to OPEN the door THEN the desired union will take place!

The next action is Christ’s - HE WILL come in -- and UNION With Christ Takes place. Note the details IN the text where Union WITH Christ is the focus!

Those who deny this goal - the objective of Christ in Knocking -- the goal of UNION WITH Christ -- deny the entire Gospel invitation of Rev 3:22!
Why deny the Gospel "just for Calvinism"? Why not embrace the truth instead?

See friends -- Be willing to quote the text and show how EACH salient point IN the illustration is showing the Gospel truth!!


Salvation is “individual” the remedy is “individual” the people IN the church of Laodicea are in fact “individuals” with the spiritual condition described, and in need of taking the “action” described – individually – to obtain the “individual solution” described IN the text in “individual” terms.

Note – the “individual terms” continue –

It is NOT just the Laodiceans that will enjoy God's company and sit with Christ - but ALL who open the door.

At times – the Calvinist approach is to imagine “the door of the CHURCH” is closed to Christ and all on the inside of the church are “without Christ” – all on the inside are “spiritually blind, wretched, poor, miserable and spiritually naked” without the robe of Christ. Then in that view – one of the members is asked to “let Christ into the church” since He is outside the door of the church knocking. But in that case the “result” would be that only to that One – is fellowship restored – the REST would remain – spewed out – miserable and lost since the language of the solution shows that “I with HIM and HE with ME” is the nature of this 1-to-1 solution.

Calvinism’s attempted rework of the text is not possible.

 

Listed above one can once again read my full quote. Please point out any rewording of the text as claimed. Now...i ask again...for it looks like this was another dodge my Bob.....are there any other doors talked about in chapter 3? if so...what does it say about all doors? how can we make both the door you post many times and the doors that you dodge fit and work together?

In Christ...James