I Will Not Pray For You

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

2Pe 3:9 not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

]

 

Amen

 

You assume that what "seems" to you is true. I disagree completely. I have been accused by non-calvinists of putting God in a box, making God guilty of sending people to hell, making God responsible for sin, not being saved, etc, etc, etc. I have seen the same done to npet and others here who respond with corrections only to have those corrections ignored.

I have repeatedly asked non-calvinists to stop putting words in my mouth by telling me what I must believe... to very little avail.

Calvinists have been aggressive at times but your claim that the "vast majority" of questionable posts or tactics come from calvinists is simply not true. I am not sure what your personal issues with npet are but maybe they'd be better resolved elsewhere.

 

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. </font>[/QUOTE] We all believe this. Our side simply interprets it with respect to the whole of scripture and its immediate context... which discusses new birth being prerequisite to entering into the kingdom of God.

My contention is that this analogy is inaccurate and misleading if new birth depends on a "decision" by the one being born. Babies aren't born because they choose to be... they do so because it is their nature. Birth neither violates a child's will nor is caused by it.

Again, this must be interpretted in the context of the whole of scripture. Plus you've apparently assumed an incorrect meaning for "propitiation".

This verse along with others you have cited has two possibilities. One, all means every single one of them in which case universalism is true. Two, "all" is qualified and does not mean every single one of them.

You have made yourself the authority by which the qualification of "all" must be defined. You make it subject to your judgment concerning what is fair for God to do. You elevate man's worthiness.

We accept and define "all" in the context of the whole of scripture.

For the umpteenth time... one of you guys have completely and totally ignored context in an attempt to find proof texts for your position. This text is specifically concerning those Peter was writing to... believers. It is specifically not dealing with the lost. You couldn't even quote the whole verse without an internal refutation of your point.

The verse identifies those who God is not willing to perish when it says "but is longsuffering to us-ward".

] </font>[/QUOTE]We're refusing to give Jesus credit for it? We give God ALL (every bit of it) the credit for it. It is YOU that contends Christ's sacrifice is incomplete without your "good decision" to accept Him.

 

npet;
How low can you stoop? Now you calling me a liar when I didn't say whether Spurgeon prayed or not. I was talking about if she was the "elect" but I can see where that cuts to the core of your argument so that is why all the hostility!!! It makes your argument look silly to say the most. I feel like I am in a room with the proud one who prayed saying how much he had done as a Christian.

Do you worship God or Spurgeon, Calvin or who to go around calling others liars is certainly not a Christian act when it is a false accusation. You should be ashame.

 

I appreciate what you are saying... remember though, I did not say that tone does not matter... what I said was that it does not follow that just because someone speaks in a certain tone, be it good or bad, that what they say is thereby automatically either right or wrong. The point still stands that if a person were to condescendingly say that 2+2=4, it does not follow that because they spoke condescendingly, what they said is false.

Secondly, the believer can indeed have a righteous anger. Eph 4:26 csb Be angry and do not sin. Don't let the sun go down on your anger,"
Vincents Words Studies says "Eph 4:26 - Be ye angry and sin not (Greek text omitted) Cited from Psa_4:5, after the Septuagint. Hebrew, stand in awe and sin not. Righteous anger is commanded, not merely permitted."

Gill comments "Eph 4:26 - Be ye angry, and sin not,.... There is anger which is not sinful; for anger is found in God himself, in Jesus Christ, in the holy angels, and in God's people; and a man may be said to be angry and not sin, when his anger arises from a true zeal for God and religion; when it is kindled not against persons, but sins; when a man is displeased with his own sins, and with the sins of others: with vice and immorality of every kind; with idolatry and idolatrous worship, and with all false doctrine; and also when it is carried on to answer good ends, as the good of those with whom we are angry, the glory of God, and the promoting of the interest of Christ: and there is an anger which is sinful; as when it is without a cause; when it exceeds due bounds; when it is not directed to a good end; when it is productive of bad effects, either in words or actions; and when it is soon raised, or long continues"

Jamison Faucett and Brown: "Eph 4:26 - Be ye angry, and sin not--So the Septuagint, Psa_4:4. Should circumstances arise to call for anger on your part, let it be as Christ's "anger" (Mar_3:5), without sin. Our natural feelings are not wrong when directed to their legitimate object, and when not exceeding due bounds. As in the future literal, so in the present spiritual, resurrection, no essential constituent is annihilated, but all that is a perversion of the original design is removed. Thus indignation at dishonor done to God, and wrong to man, is justifiable anger. Passion is sinful (derived from "passio," suffering: implying that amidst seeming energy, a man is really passive, the slave of his anger, instead of ruling it)."

Thirdly, I would just point out that when you look at how Paul and John addressed false doctrine, it is evident that they were very passionate and even angry at the false teachers and their false teachings, as they tried to sneak into the flock and plant heresy. Therefore, as we are to imitate the godly, we may imitate their anger, as long as the boundaries above are met.

blessings,
Ken

 

Let me be more specific.

While this is academically true, no real Calvinist would approve of this attitude. God does not NEED to work through men, but He DOES work through men. God may use our obedience (or even our disobedience) to save the elect.

Here is where you lie and resort to an ad-hominem attack against Spurgeon. There is no evidence whatsoever that Spurgeon assumed this woman was not of the elect. His point was that the Gospel is the Gospel, and he's not going to pray to God to change the Gospel for her sake.

Then you suggest that he thought it was more important to tell free-willers they are lost, once again a fabrication out of nowhere. Again, this is a mean-spirited ad-hominem attack against Spurgeon and Calvinists, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the original post.

You want to talk about false accusations? Produce a single sermon by Spurgeon that he is telling free-willers that they are lost -- let alone proving that he thought it was more important than preaching the Gospel. Otherwise you are the one making false accusations.

Now you're suggesting I may worship Spurgeon or Calvin (the common last resort of a person who is unable to defend their soteriology). Once again, a mean-spirited accusation with no foundation in reality. NOW THAT is a false accusation. All I'm doing is defending Spurgeon against your fabricated ad-hominem attack. That isn't worshiping him.

The fact is that the woman was saved, and she credited at least part of it to Spurgeon's brutal honesty that he was not going to pervert the Gospel just for her sake.

Get real. If anyone should be ashamed, it's you.

[ May 16, 2006, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

nept;Here is where you lie and resort to an ad-hominem attack against Spurgeon.

BB; So maybe we judged him too quick, maybe Spurgeon somehow knew this woman was not one of the group and he had more important things to do, such as tell the free-willers they are lost.

BB; Why don't you get real and read the post correctly before making a statement that I lied. {SNIP}

[ May 17, 2006, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

{SNIP}

Now -- because I used the word "maybe", was that an innocent suggestion, or an ad-hominem attack? I noticed your {SNIP} remark didn't have a "maybe" in it, so I guess I'm far less mean-spirited than you are.

Let me clarify something. {SNIP} You made baseless ad-hominem attacks against both Spurgeon and me (worship Spurgeon and Calvin) in the form of suggestions, and for those things you should be ashamed. Definitely you are too immature to admit when you're wrong.

[ May 17, 2006, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Scott,
What I say on posts and where are not any of your business, and really, dont need your advice as to how to handle other opinions.

Since I agree with Calvinism, my only disagreement with people like you and npet is your rude, condecending tone. I have read many of your posts since last time you started, and they are just one rung above npets. Both of you are sad spokesmen for Calvinism. And yes, I have seen the attacks from both sides, and those like you and npet tip the scales on the Calvinism side for rudeness.

Npet, your treatment of Brother Bob is shameful. Even though we disagree, he is gracious in debate, which you are not. Brother Bob has spent his life in service to the Lord. What have you done? Reading your posts gives me a very good idea.

 

Nothing more to say, have a nice day.

 

Spurgeon was a man of God, whom God gifted in such abundance that his life and works surpass those of all of us on this board combined. By the woman's own testimnoy, what he said and did was instrumental in her getting saved.

He deserves more respect than for someone to suggest that he might have thought it was "more important" to run around telling free willers they are lost -- especially since there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever did such a thing, let alone that he felt it was more important.

I don't care if you like me, or how I present things. But I won't let such a derogatory statement go unchallenged.

 

That is hypocritical. By the very same token, what npet or I or anyone else say on posts and where are not any of YOUR business. If you are going to judge so harshly then you shouldn't protest when someone much more gently responds.

And what are you being?

Refer back to your first sentence in this post.

Says you. But since I do not want to be hypocritical, cite specifics of where I have been unduly harsh and I will honestly consider your criticism. I am by no means perfect and the "spirit" in which things are said in a written discussion like this are not always easy to convey. I can honestly say that I don't hold grudges against the folks who disagree with me.

I haven't questioned anyone's salvation over this issue. I attempt to allow others to say what they mean or else offer them a conclusion with an opportunity to offer an alternative.

So the one who loudly protests a fairly gentle rebuttal would now be so condescending as to make this judgment?

 

Saturneptune: BrotherBob has been ungracious on many occasions, just like many of the rest of us. Respect his work if you will but don't try to canonize him.

 

Yes, I do indeed error at times to which I regret. But to call me a liar when I said what I did about Spurgeon is beyond error and I figure Spurgeon was a lot like you all and you certainly tell the free-willers there doctrine is heresy and therefore lost. I suspect if I did a study on Spurgeon I would find the same statements that have been made on here by some of you but I just don't have the time to waste.

 

Really? How did I just post? I'm just playing around...

 

Try it now, Webdog!!