An "Ax to Grind!"

[Wesley Briggman]

Unfortunately you misunderstand that passage. The Natural man is not those who are lost but those who think, view the world, with worldly wisdom. Paul was not comparing the lost and the saved man he was comparing the worldly view with the wisdom of God. Paul did this to correct the Christians in Corinth who were acting through worldly wisdom. Paul was not calling them lost.

Thanks for not hesitating to share your view.

 

[Revmitchell]

Thanks for not hesitating to share your view.

Back at ya!

 

[Iconoclast]

I know that is what calvies need to support their ideology but when you read the context as I just explained its not.

As usual...you have no spiritual understanding of this and many other passages....because you resist truth...you will not be allowed to see any of it.

 

[Reynolds]

As usual...you have no spiritual understanding of this and many other passages....because you resist truth...you will not be allowed to see any of it.

The "ignorant" insult yet again repackaged.

 

[Iconoclast]

The "ignorant" insult yet again repackaged.

When you and others post ignorant things what do you expect...a cookie?
It is not an insult...it is an observation.
look at what RM has as a signature...
"God’s refusal to determine the repentance of sinners when it is within his power to do so can be called nothing other than immoral. Damning certain people by withholding something freely given to others is not glorious. It is indeed a horrible decree." ~Eric Hankins, PhD


This is a God hating ignorant statement...Would you care to defend it Reynolds?

 

[Rippon]

Unfortunately you misunderstand that passage. The Natural man is not those who are lost but those who think, view the world, with worldly wisdom. Paul was not comparing the lost and the saved man he was comparing the worldly view with the wisdom of God. Paul did this to correct the Christians in Corinth who were acting through worldly wisdom. Paul was not calling them lost.

How far off the mark you are.

Even non-Calvinists have known that the person referenced in 1 Cor. 2:14 is devoid of the Holy Spirit.

Wesley's Explanator Notes : But the natural man --That is, every man who hath not the Spirit.

Adam Clarke : the man who is in a state of nature without the regenerating grace of God.

There was a thread about three years ago that DHK participated in. For a number of posts he would not acknowledge this truth. His first post #68 said :"The context is not about the unsaved."

But by his post number 134 he changed his mind. He then said: "The point is : It may describe an unsaved man."

May you too come to acknowledge in humble submission to the authority of God's Holy Word what is so vividly clear to the rest of us. May the Lord open your eyes.

 

[Benjamin]

The Calvinists typically do not deny "free will" in the sense of one having the right to choose of all that the fallen will may choose.

What the Calvinist typically do deny is that such a fallen will cannot of its own innate ability choose that which is outside of the parameters of the fallen.

To those who do not turn from the light, who seek the light, who embrace the light, who long for the light is no indication that they have of their own innate ability to choose other then to respond to the light given, that light which is commonly given to all humankind.

To those who respond to the light and not turn from the light it is given by God that they may be His own.

Nothing in them attained the salvation. They merely did not turn from the light given.

Freedom of the will is bound by the nature of the fallen creature.

I am well aware of Calvinist’s views of compatibility wherein Calvinist make the claim the fallen have a choice “free will” while, as per their attempts to strictly hold to their doctrines of Total Inability and boxed-in views of divine foreknowledge, they will insist on the predetermination of that creature’s choice to which they also say are bound to his nature. But I fail to see this philosophically proposal of “free will choice”, which has my respect in that at least it tries and/or recognizes the need to avoid theology fatalism, as logically and biblically true.

The Calvinist proposal of "free will choice" + "bound to his nature" amounts to:

Bill C: “God determined all things that ever happen, He is Sovereign."

Bob A: "Did God determine the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"

Bill C: "No, Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because of his nature."

Bob A: "Who determined Jeffrey Dahmer’s nature?"

Bill C: "God did, He determines all things, He is Sovereign."

Does not the Scripture clearly state that salvation is NOT by the will of humans?

Does scripture not also say clearly that all God’s way are judgment in truth? Therein is just one way that the Calvinist’ conclusion that the creature’s nature, involving volition, is pre-determinately bound, from before time and the life of the creature, as to what that choice(s) will be falls short of the truths of God in their systematic theological constructs.

 

[Reynolds]

When you and others post ignorant things what do you expect...a cookie?
It is not an insult...it is an observation.
look at what RM has as a signature...
"God’s refusal to determine the repentance of sinners when it is within his power to do so can be called nothing other than immoral. Damning certain people by withholding something freely given to others is not glorious. It is indeed a horrible decree." ~Eric Hankins, PhD


This is a God hating ignorant statement...Would you care to defend it Reynolds?

In your opinion, anything that disagrees with you is ignorant.
I don't believe either side of the C vs. A debate has it right. I don't believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe when we see God face to face, we will all see that there was a piece to the puzzle that was not revealed.

I will say that as a true Classical Arminian, I come closer to siding with a Calvinist than I do a "traditionalist". I don't see how you can have eternal security without all 4 other points. I see Calvinism and I see C.A. as defensible doctrines. I see all the compromise positions between the two as riddled with holes. What I don't like about the modern or the neo Cals is their arrogance and often downright nastiness. Without love its just sounding brass. Why get nasty about a secondary doctrine?

 

[Iconoclast]

In your opinion, anything that disagrees with you is ignorant.
I don't believe either side of the C vs. A debate has it right. I don't believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe when we see God face to face, we will all see that there was a piece to the puzzle that was not revealed.

Can you comment on the blasphemous statement by Hankins?i repeat it for you again...
"God’s refusal to determine the repentance of sinners when it is within his power to do so can be called nothing other than immoral.Damning certain people by withholding something freely given to others is not glorious. It is indeed a horrible decree." ~Eric Hankins, PhD

 

[Iconoclast]

"Reynolds,

In your opinion,

Of course it is my opinion...this is a messageboard...people give their opinions.

anything that disagrees with you is ignorant.

Yes...more often than not that is true on BB. Many are intensely ignorant...good call Reynolds

I don't believe either side of the C vs. A debate has it right.

I believe you are sadly mistaken...

I don't believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

It is not in the middle...there is truth and there is error.

I believe when we see God face to face, we will all see that there was a piece to the puzzle that was not revealed.

No...revealed truth is revealed...for believers;
Deut29;
29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

I will say that as a true Classical Arminian, I come closer to siding with a Calvinist than I do a "traditionalist"

.

Of course you do...now just be consistent.

I don't see how you can have eternal security without all 4 other points

.

Arminians who plead the fifth...are still Arminians...they boast of holding to what they callosas...but that is another shallow error.

I see Calvinism and I see C.A. as defensible doctrines. I see all the compromise positions between the two as riddled with holes.

Again Reynolds...just be consistent...no compromise because all the error is in the attempted compromise....you see that already....so do all the Cals.

What I don't like about the modern or the neo Cals is their arrogance and often downright nastiness.

That is a weak excuse....What you see ...is non cals attacking without scripture...The Cals answer and shut down the nonsense....Non cals cannot respond...so they use the rude/ arrogant card...in the absence of a scriptural interaction...because they have nothing to offer...yet fight anyway...now that my friend is ignorant...
Here is an example....the poster...saved by grace was telling the other poster about what he thought the greek words meant in jn 3:16...
Archangel comes on and corrects his error. Does he thank Archangel? No he goes into hiding. Then he will show up a week later and repeat his error here, or on another messageboard...Yes Reynolds...I think that is ignorant and quite sinful.

Without love its just sounding brass. Why get nasty about a secondary doctrine?

It is easy for you to make this charge...but it is not accurate. Those who engage in disputes just for the sake of disputes are no friends to grace and need to be shut down, until they desire to sincerely learn.

 

[Reynolds]

"Reynolds,



Of course it is my opinion...this is a messageboard...people give their opinions.


Yes...more often than not that is true on BB. Many are intensely ignorant...good call Reynolds

I believe you are sadly mistaken...



It is not in the middle...there is truth and there is error.

No...revealed truth is revealed...for believers;
Deut29;
29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

.

Of course you do...now just be consistent.
.

Arminians who plead the fifth...are still Arminians...they boast of holding to what they callosas...but that is another shallow error.


Again Reynolds...just be consistent...no compromise because all the error is in the attempted compromise....you see that already....so do all the Cals.



That is a weak excuse....What you see ...is non cals attacking without scripture...The Cals answer and shut down the nonsense....Non cals cannot respond...so they use the rude/ arrogant card...in the absence of a scriptural interaction...because they have nothing to offer...yet fight anyway...now that my friend is ignorant...
Here is an example....the poster...saved by grace was telling the other poster about what he thought the greek words meant in jn 3:16...
Archangel comes on and corrects his error. Does he thank Archangel? No he goes into hiding. Then he will show up a week later and repeat his error here, or on another messageboard...Yes Reynolds...I think that is ignorant and quite sinful.



It is easy for you to make this charge...but it is not accurate. Those who engage in disputes just for the sake of disputes are no friends to grace and need to be shut down, until they desire to sincerely learn.

Arminians present scripture. Non-Cals present scripture. You simply call their interpretation ignorant and self proclaim victory.

 

[Reynolds]

Can you comment on the blasphemous statement by Hankins?i repeat it for you again...
"God’s refusal to determine the repentance of sinners when it is within his power to do so can be called nothing other than immoral.Damning certain people by withholding something freely given to others is not glorious. It is indeed a horrible decree." ~Eric Hankins, PhD

Ed Hindson has said basically the same thing. Many non-cal scholars have said basically the same thing. I come much closer to agreeing with them than I do with you.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ed Hindson has said basically the same thing. Many non-cal scholars have said basically the same thing. I come much closer to agreeing with them than I do with you.

If you agree with such profane statements...you can have them Reynolds...so you would say that you and your friends are in position to advise God who He should save??? I see....then you would call Cals arrogant...I understand
you agree with this???

"God’s refusal to determine the repentance of sinners when it is within his power to do so can be called nothing other than immoral.

Tells me all I need to know

 

[SovereignGrace]

As usual...you have no spiritual understanding of this and many other passages....because you resist truth...you will not be allowed to see any of it.

And it was another post devoid of scripture, which is per usual. He and Y1 are running neck-and-neck.

 

[SovereignGrace]

When you and others post ignorant things what do you expect...a cookie?
It is not an insult...it is an observation.
look at what RM has as a signature...
"God’s refusal to determine the repentance of sinners when it is within his power to do so can be called nothing other than immoral. Damning certain people by withholding something freely given to others is not glorious. It is indeed a horrible decree." ~Eric Hankins, PhD


This is a God hating ignorant statement...Would you care to defend it Reynolds?

Wowzers! Wow. Just wow!

 

[Yeshua1]

I know that is what calvies need to support their ideology but when you read the context as I just explained its not.

Paul has in mind 3 people types in this passage:
The unsaved, will be ignorant to things of God
Saved and immature babes in christ drinks milk
Saved and Mature eats meat

 

[Reynolds]

If you agree with such profane statements...you can have them Reynolds...so you would say that you and your friends are in position to advise God who He should save??? I see....then you would call Cals arrogant...I understand
you agree with this???

"God’s refusal to determine the repentance of sinners when it is within his power to do so can be called nothing other than immoral.

Tells me all I need to know

You assume you know what God thinks. You do not know the mind of God. You simply, in your usual manner, declare yourself as right and claim disagreement with you as ignorant, immoral, blasphemous, etc.etc.
You are not God. You do not speak from inspiration. You lack comprehension of the fact that your opinion is mere opinion and not fact.

I will from now on adopt your logic when I converse with you. From now on, I am right and if you disagree with me, you are ignorant . If you were not ignorant, you would agree with me. Until you agree with me, you are simply ignorant.

 

[Felipe Rios]

So far, so good.

How can you meet a condition of perfect holiness when you admit you are Totally Depraved?

Do you believe everyone, including Satan and his demons will be saved?

So only half of God's Grace accomplishes what He decrees it to accomplish. I don't know. That sounds like a pretty weak God, to me. Is that what you really meant to suggest?

Well, better late than never.

As to Molinism: Molinism is a view that cannot be defended using only the Bible. That is because it is a philosophical theory and not a Theological one.

The ideas of Natural Knowledge, Middle Knowledge, and Free Knowledge are nonsense with no biblical support at all.

How can you meet a condition of perfect holiness when you admit you are Totally Depraved?
Election is unconditional in the sense that there was no human good in us causing God to want to save us. It is conditional in the sense that we must repent and believe to be saved.

Do you believe everyone, including Satan and his demons will be saved?
Of course no. But the bible is clear that Jesus died for ALL not just the elect.
So only half of God's Grace accomplishes what He decrees it to accomplish. I don't know. That sounds like a pretty weak God, to me. Is that what you really meant to suggest?
God's grace is irresistible AFTER we are saved NOT before we are saved. Hence the reason why we persevere, because we cannot resist God while his Spirit dwells in us.

Well, better late than never.

As to Molinism: Molinism is a view that cannot be defended using only the Bible. That is because it is a philosophical theory and not a Theological one.
Molinism can very easily be defended with scripture. The problem with Calvinism is that it assumes a lot of things and it contradicts itself in many things.

The ideas of Natural Knowledge, Middle Knowledge, and Free Knowledge are nonsense with no biblical support at all.
Wrong

 

[TCassidy]

Election is unconditional in the sense that there was no human good in us causing God to want to save us.

Exactly.

It is conditional in the sense that we must repent and believe to be saved.

How can a totally depraved person do something spiritual when the spirit is dead and the person is the enemy of God?

But the bible is clear that Jesus died for ALL not just the elect.

If He died for all why do unbelievers go to Hell? This is where Arminianism has a serious flaw. YOU limit the atonement just as much as I do. I limit it to the elect. You limit it to believers. If you did not limit it you would be a universalist.

God's grace is irresistible AFTER we are saved NOT before we are saved.

So God's Grace is weak (not efficacious) prior to salvation, but after salvation we make God's Grace efficacious, something He couldn't do before we were saved?

Molinism can very easily be defended with scripture.

Defend Natural Knowledge, Middle Knowledge, and Free Knowledge from scripture.

The problem with Calvinism is that it assumes a lot of things and it contradicts itself in many things.

Give me three examples. Thank you.

Wrong

Right.

 

[Yeshua1]

How can you meet a condition of perfect holiness when you admit you are Totally Depraved?
Election is unconditional in the sense that there was no human good in us causing God to want to save us. It is conditional in the sense that we must repent and believe to be saved.

Do you believe everyone, including Satan and his demons will be saved?
Of course no. But the bible is clear that Jesus died for ALL not just the elect.
So only half of God's Grace accomplishes what He decrees it to accomplish. I don't know. That sounds like a pretty weak God, to me. Is that what you really meant to suggest?
God's grace is irresistible AFTER we are saved NOT before we are saved. Hence the reason why we persevere, because we cannot resist God while his Spirit dwells in us.

Well, better late than never.

As to Molinism: Molinism is a view that cannot be defended using only the Bible. That is because it is a philosophical theory and not a Theological one.
Molinism can very easily be defended with scripture. The problem with Calvinism is that it assumes a lot of things and it contradicts itself in many things.

The ideas of Natural Knowledge, Middle Knowledge, and Free Knowledge are nonsense with no biblical support at all.
Wrong

Calvinism is shown and proven by the scriptures themselves!