Fruits of Calvanism

Let's think about this for a moment. While you were obviously lobbing a shot over the Reformed bow with that comment you incidentally hit yourself. If dogmatism is a funtion of pride then both sides are equally guilty. If that is the case then debating this topic is fruitless and sinful. We should cease at once. If, on the other hand, a person has prayerfully and humbly sought the Lord on the issue and has studied the scriptures to prove whether these things are true, and if that person has been convinced by the perponderance of the evidence that this is what the scripture teaches, then dogmatism is not a negative. At that point it is resolve and confidence in what scripture teaches. But even the dogmatist must maintain an attitude of teachability.

When I used to to believe in free will (much the same as Tim and Me4Him) I was just as dogmatic. You two would have embraced me as a comrade in arms because I was just like you. I never quite thought of Reformed believers are cultists or heretics, but I certainly thought they were misguided. For a long, long time I was not teachable. My mind was closed. Of course, things changed. I believe the Lord worked on my mind and conscience to study the issue. Eventually I saw the sovereignty of God from a Reformed perspective. My only points are that: A) Dogmatism is not always bad B) We must always be teachable.

 

So, you admit that you think God is reactionary and subservient to man's sovereign free-will. Interesting. </font>[/QUOTE]Man only reaps what man sows, nothing else.

It's man choice of whom he will serve, and he reaps accordingly.

If "pharaoh", the man, had chosen to "serve God", he wouldn't have been the "PERSON" raised up to sit on the throne,

God, "through his "Foreknowledge", can chose from millions of people whom he knows will refuse to obey under any circumstances in order to make his point, and without interfearing with their "FREE WILL".

Pharaoh reject God before God harden his heart,

Jesus's death for all sins obligates God to make at least one call to all sinners, but only one, after that, God's mercy is at God's discretion, to have mercy on whom he will, but even then:

2Pe 3:9 is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

There's a cut off point in which God's spirit will stop "striving with a person".

 

Can you enlighten us as to when that cutoff point occurs? How much must someone sin and resist God before He gives up trying to save the person? Will God keep trying after, say, 17 murders, 250 adulteries, 4,234,590 lies, and 1 fashion faux pas? Is that the cutoff point? Maybe one more murder or one more lie and God gives up? Unsaved enquiring minds really want to know.

 

That's the difference between us, I've never read "Calvin", Scofield, or "ANY" of these "Books" written by men, 99.99% of these "names" of individuals who are suppose to be great authorities on the Bible, I've never heard before, everything I've learned has been from the bible, uncontaminated by man's doctrines, taught to me by the "SPIRIT".

and I've "NEVER" had to change the belief the Spirit has taught me.

The link I gave you originally for the material I posted, is not information you'll find in any book by these Bible authorities, So I can't be accused of plegarism.

A man's words, spoken/written, bear witness to the "inspiration".

 

That's the difference between us, I've never read "Calvin", Scofield, or "ANY" of these "Books" written by men, 99.99% of these "names" of individuals who are suppose to be great authorities on the Bible, I've never heard before, everything I've learned has been from the bible, uncontaminated by man's doctrines, taught to me by the "SPIRIT".

and I've "NEVER" had to change the belief the Spirit has taught me.

The link I gave you originally for the material I posted, is not information you'll find in any book by these Bible authorities, So I can't be accused of plegarism.

A man's words, spoken/written, bear witness to the "inspiration". </font>[/QUOTE]Why do you assume that I changed my theological point of view because of books written by men? In any of my posts have I ever given credit to Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Sproul etc. for my theological shift? My heart and mind changed towards the Reformed view of scripture upon the reading and study of the Book of Romans without any prompting from past or current saints.

 

That's the difference between us, I've never read "Calvin", Scofield, or "ANY" of these "Books" written by men, 99.99% of these "names" of individuals who are suppose to be great authorities on the Bible, I've never heard before, everything I've learned has been from the bible, uncontaminated by man's doctrines, taught to me by the "SPIRIT".

and I've "NEVER" had to change the belief the Spirit has taught me.

The link I gave you originally for the material I posted, is not information you'll find in any book by these Bible authorities, So I can't be accused of plegarism.

A man's words, spoken/written, bear witness to the "inspiration". </font>[/QUOTE]Me4Him, I am just using logical progression here...if I use your standard then I should ignore your posts. Why? The Holy Spirit will guide me into all truth. Anything ever written by man is just opinion. We should not use the internet in search of spiritual truth.

Extreme? Yes, but it is the logical conclusion of your point of view.

 

I think you missed my point, when the spirit teaches, you don't ever change your doctrine, Truth never changes.

The spirit will prove it's teachings in more way than you can imagine, things that are seen by everyone, but not the connection between them.

Why is it no one questions the "TRUTH" of Matt, Mark, Luke, John, but does Calvin, doesn't the spirit bear witness to the "TRUTH" no matter who speaks/write it???


Why doesn't Calvin's doctrine have the same support from the spirit as doesn't the writers of the gospel, theres only two possible answers.

1. Calvins right, people are not listening to the spirit.

2. Calvin's wrong, people are listening to spirit.

When you consider that only one side can be following the spirit, you get an idea of how much the "falling away" has affect the church, but it will also affect their rewards when giving an account for every idle word.

Our words are not lost in "cyber space", they'll return, and not "Void", but as witnesses, for or against us.

 

Can you enlighten us as to when that cutoff point occurs? How much must someone sin and resist God before He gives up trying to save the person? Will God keep trying after, say, 17 murders, 250 adulteries, 4,234,590 lies, and 1 fashion faux pas? Is that the cutoff point? Maybe one more murder or one more lie and God gives up? Unsaved enquiring minds really want to know. </font>[/QUOTE]Only God knows and it's not a good idea to try to find out on your own.

 

Can you enlighten us as to when that cutoff point occurs? How much must someone sin and resist God before He gives up trying to save the person? Will God keep trying after, say, 17 murders, 250 adulteries, 4,234,590 lies, and 1 fashion faux pas? Is that the cutoff point? Maybe one more murder or one more lie and God gives up? Unsaved enquiring minds really want to know. </font>[/QUOTE]Only God knows and it's not a good idea to try to find out on your own. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, what makes me curious is that I get the impression that there will be former paxtayers and all around normal people in hell, but there will be former murderers, drug dealers, slave traders, etc. in heaven. Obviously, the cutoff point has to be something beyond murder, drug dealing, slave trading, etc. And yet I get the impression that people who do far less wrong in their lives will end up in hell.

So if God can reach murderers, drug dealers, slave traders, etc., then what is God doing wrong that He can't seem to turn the hearts of some normal people? Why did He give over those "normal" people up to their sin, but keep hacking away at those murderers, slave traders, etc.?

Just curious, since it seems a little lopsided to me. Maybe if you can tell God what He is doing wrong with those "normal" people, you can help Him out getting those people saved, too.

 

Ge 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,

 

Let's look at the context:

The whole point of this chapter has to do with the wickedness of man and God's choosing of Noah. Back in verse 3 the Lord is limiting the average life expectancy of man. The Lord is removing His hand of protection from man's physical life expectancy. This happened gradually in generations following the flood. It has nothing to do with anything else in context.

 

1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you,

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

You can also eat/drink the lord supper, unworthy, and die.

You only rebell against God up to a point, he'll get tried of that rebellion in a hurry.

People who rebell, love their sin and don't repent of it.

 

1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you,

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

You can also eat/drink the lord supper, unworthy, and die.

You only rebell against God up to a point, he'll get tried of that rebellion in a hurry.

People who rebell, love their sin and don't repent of it. </font>[/QUOTE]I won't debate that God has limits. We don't know what they are, but He does have them. My point was your use of Genesis 6.

 

me4him said:

Boy, did that trigger some questions in my mind.

npetrely beat me to this one. He wanted to know where that cut-off point is, and I assume your answer will be forthcoming.

My questions are, okay, let's assume God has stopped striving with a person. What now? What's the fallout? Is it now impossible that person to be saved? Has God at that point given him over to a reprobate mind? Is the Sprit's striving a necessary element of salvation? Is there ever a situation where the Holy Spirit sovereignly chooses not to strive with an individual--ever? If man has free will, what difference does it make either way?

I look forward to your comments, and those of anybody else who'd like to take a shot the questions.

 

No argument here.

Wrong. The Bible says God raised him up in order to show His power in Pharaoh, not because pharaoh didn't choose to serve Him. The raising up came first. The choice not to serve came second. Order is important in the Scripture.

We never said that God interferes with anyone's free will. By hardening Pharaoh's heart God further pushed pharaoh down the road he was already on as someone who was dead in sin.

Again, order is important in Scripture. Twice in the Exodus account it says that God will harden Pharaoh's heart or God hardened Pharaoh's heart before it ever says anything about Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Did you not read the verse I put?

Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Notice that God does not say, "Pharaoh will decide not to let the people go, so I will harden his heart." No, He says that He will harden Pharaoh's heart for the express purpose of causing Pharaoh to not let the people go. It is God's choice here, not Pharaoh's, that is the emphasis.

I still don't understand how you guys can claim that Christ died for absolutely every sin that anyone ever committed and still believe people go to hell. What sin do they go to hell for? Unbelief, you say? But, I thought Jesus died for absolutely every sin that anyone ever committed. That would include unbelief.

On the other hand, if Jesus died only for absolutely every sin ever committed by the elect, that would include their unbelief and would allow Him to remain just and the justifier of the one who then believes after a lifetime of unbelief.

 

I have to laugh when you talk of Jesus invitation to gather the children of Israel under his wings.

Matt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

I assume this is the verse that you are talking about in the invitation.

Now, I live in a small town, on the edge of town, under a hill. There is lots of country inside these city limits. And there are lots of cats, wild cats. Lots of litters of young'ens at various times of the year. And did I add, they are wild. Got some cute ones. And I sure would like to hold and pet and play with them sometimes.... but did I mention that they are wild. Twenty feet is a little too close for most of them and that is about as close as I ever get. Even the little ones won't be enticed no matter how I try. How oft would I gather them, but they would not........

Are they welcome to come, yes. Are they by nature able to, no.

I think Jesus was making a statement of the inability of their response rather than extending an invitation.....

 

The questions that needs answering is "WHY" wasn't they taken under his wings, Predestination or their "unbelief"???

And did Jesus do all that was necessary on the part of God (effectual call) for them to come??

And if God gives the faith to believe, why would Jesus be "Sorry" that he couldn't take them under his wings, shouldn't he have been angry with God, rather than Israel????

Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Mt 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

Mt 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

If God is controlling the "will of man", (Giving Faith to believe) then why doesn't God give sufficient faith to prevent a person from ever returning back into sin, that is if God is controlling man's will??

This of course would make "Backsliding" impossible, unless God is responsible for the backslidding too.

Jer 8:5 Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding? they hold fast deceit, they refuse to return.

Jer 3:22 Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings.

Jer 3:12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.

I think God's invitation was just as earnest and just as "SORRY" as Jesus that Israel refused to return to him.

 

Both. They were predestined not to believe.

 

Both. They were predestined not to believe. </font>[/QUOTE]Then is God "LYING", he said it wasn't his will, sovereign or otherwise, for any to perish??


Does God lie???????

No matter how much scripture is twisted, the doctrine of predestination hit a "Stone wall" when it confronts this statement from God.