Biblical Assertion

[Martin Marprelate]

I am sorry that you show such a lack of logical reading skills. Your correct we can bid Christ Jesus to return but we can not command Him to do so just as we can not command that people repent. We can tell them that they need to repent but that is the extent to which we can go. You refer to 2 Timothy 4:2 'Convince, rebuke, exhort....' . and Luke 14:23 'Compel them to come in' but do you not notice that it is still the person or persons that have to respond. They have to exercise their God given free will no matter how much you think we can command them to repent.

Well again, I'm sorry you don't like the word of God as it is written in the Bible, and you don't answer whether you are expecting our Lord to return. As to the hearers, certainly they will exercise their free wills. Those whose hearts God has opened will freely come to Christ, while the others will freely refuse because they freely pOTEefer darkness to light (John 3:19).

That was a great preaching event and as you said many did respond to Gods command to repent. But the question is, if it is a command of God, as you seem to think it should be understood, would not all that heard Spurgeon have repented?

Why would you suppose that? Does everyone always obey God's Ten Commandments? Alas, no. God commands all men everywhere to repent, and if they do not, as they will not unless God opens their hearts, they will reap the consequences of their disobedience. God honoured Spurgeon's preaching throughout his life, but especially that day because he followed God in commanding men to repent and come to Christ. Spurgeon, of course, was a Five-point Calvinist (there is actually no other kind). If you read the sermon you were reading Calvinist preaching.

I did note that you did not respond to what I posted re your use of Acts of the Apostles 17:30. Are you going to tell me that Gods command to repent only applies to those that actually do repent and that the "all men everywhere" in Acts 17:30 are really just the "Calvinist elect"?

I am absolutely not going to tell you anything of the sort. It is as I wrote above. God commands all men everywhere to repent, and if they do not, they are in big trouble.

Martin if we use your understanding of command in this verse then you are prompting universalism and nothing less. But since we know that God desires all to come to repentance and that man will be held responsible for how he responds to the gospel message then we can be sure that your understanding of Gods command here is wrong.

God commands all to come to repentance, and He will receive all who do (John 6:37). The others will indeed be held responsible for their wicked disobedience. We can be absolutely sure that you understanding of God's command is well and truly up the creek.

 

[DaveXR650]

Note the order Paul describes here.
1) The saved are those who call on the name of the Lord.
2) They call because they believe.
3) They believe because they heard.
4) They heard because a preacher shared the Gospel.
Working backwards, Gospel → Hearing → Believing → Calling → Salvation.

That'll work. It describes what happens perfectly. There is nothing wrong with it unless you ignore all the scripture that talks about God's sovereignty in salvation and granting faith. And if you take it and infer that anything not included in that listing is credited to your own natural ability which is not implied there and also ignores other scripture.

It would be as if I said "I went to the hospital. I took a medicine. I got cured because I took the medicine. I went home". Nothing untrue there at all. But what really happened was that after a culture was taken and grown a specific bacteria was discovered as the cause of your illness. You were given an antibiotic that at the cellular level attached to the 30S ribosomal subunit of the pathogenic bacteria, causing the bacteria to be unable to synthesize certain proteins resulting in the death of the bacterial cells. My original explanation was fine, and right, just not complete.

In your case, like the above example, your explanation is fine. It just does not fully explain the theology behind it. So did Paul not know what he was talking about? Sure he did. Most of this is Pauline theology. It's just that you can't explain everything every time you say something. But this is a theology forum so some depth is expected. And, when a certain point is not explained in a passage you do not have a right to fill in you own version of theology to explain it.

 

[DaveXR650]

Funny how you say that something that God actually states should not be considered, that He desires all to come to repentance, but we should hold to the idea that God determines everything that one does or thinks but then not accept the logical outcome of that errant idea. Why would you say that I am using the same argument as an atheist when I quote scripture. Do you not believe that God actually want all to be saved?

First, I believe God knows everything that is happening and could prevent it but doesn't always. That's different than believing he determines every minute event exactly. I believe God has plans and sovereign desires which he chooses to bring about but he, in his wisdom, allows a lot of things in this fallen world to occur that are against his will.

Atheists quote scripture too. And they like the idea of throwing at Christians the false paradox that given the bad things that happen - God is either unwilling or unable to help us. I'm sorry. But they do, and it sounds like your argument.

By the way, 2 Peter 3:9 says God is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish... I don't know if I would make that a defining doctrine of the purpose of God towards the whole world. If that was the case he can never come because there are always more people. That is unless he sovereignly has a time where the elect are all saved and he says "It is time".

 

[Silverhair]

Maybe you should have read this passage before commenting about my post. Like I wrote: He WILL return. Period.

Acts of the Apostles 1:10-11 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

And you should read and hopefully understand Revelation 22:17 before you comment. Try looking at the context as that will help.

 

[KenH]

And you should read and hopefully understand Revelation 22:17 before you comment. Try looking at the context as that will help.

I really don't understand why you have a problem with me stating that it is a certainty that Christ will return.

 

[Silverhair]

That'll work. It describes what happens perfectly. There is nothing wrong with it unless you ignore all the scripture that talks about God's sovereignty in salvation and granting faith. And if you take it and infer that anything not included in that listing is credited to your own natural ability which is not implied there and also ignores other scripture.

It would be as if I said "I went to the hospital. I took a medicine. I got cured because I took the medicine. I went home". Nothing untrue there at all. But what really happened was that after a culture was taken and grown a specific bacteria was discovered as the cause of your illness. You were given an antibiotic that at the cellular level attached to the 30S ribosomal subunit of the pathogenic bacteria, causing the bacteria to be unable to synthesize certain proteins resulting in the death of the bacterial cells. My original explanation was fine, and right, just not complete.

In your case, like the above example, your explanation is fine. It just does not fully explain the theology behind it. So did Paul not know what he was talking about? Sure he did. Most of this is Pauline theology. It's just that you can't explain everything every time you say something. But this is a theology forum so some depth is expected. And, when a certain point is not explained in a passage you do not have a right to fill in you own version of theology to explain it.

What I se in your response is that you are ignoring the scriptures I posted. Would you care to provide scripture that disproves what I had posted. You make claims that you do not backup. We all know that God is sovereign but where are your verses that clearly show God granting faith unto salvation.

What did you miss in the scripture I posted? Did you not see that it is the person that hears and believes are the ones that are saved? Those that confess Christ Jesus are saved? These are not hard concepts to understand as the text is clear. It seems you have a problem accepting this clear scripture as it does not align with your theological view.

The theology behind my prior post and this one is the bible. I am not trying to support any particular view, just the bible. You on the other hand have stated that you are a Calvinist so I would expect you would want to support your version of theology. I was always taught that the bible itself is it's best commentary. I will use dictionaries, commentaries and I even have some systematic theologies that I will look at by times. What I do not do is depend upon them to inform me as to what the bible says. They are to be a guide not a replacement for scripture.

I fully agree that we do not have the right to fill in our own version of theology and that is why I let the scripture speak for itself.

 

[Silverhair]

I really don't understand why you have a problem with me stating that it is a certainty that Christ will return.

I don't have a problem with that as we all know that He will return at the appointed time. What I am saying is that the Rev 22:17 is not a command for Christ to return it is the HS and the bride entreating Him to return soon. Try reading the text and what I wrote without the Calvinist glasses.

 

[Silverhair]

Well again, I'm sorry you don't like the word of God as it is written in the Bible, and you don't answer whether you are expecting our Lord to return. As to the hearers, certainly they will exercise their free wills. Those whose hearts God has opened will freely come to Christ, while the others will freely refuse because they freely pOTEefer darkness to light (John 3:19).

Why would you suppose that? Does everyone always obey God's Ten Commandments? Alas, no. God commands all men everywhere to repent, and if they do not, as they will not unless God opens their hearts, they will reap the consequences of their disobedience. God honoured Spurgeon's preaching throughout his life, but especially that day because he followed God in commanding men to repent and come to Christ. Spurgeon, of course, was a Five-point Calvinist (there is actually no other kind). If you read the sermon you were reading Calvinist preaching.

I am absolutely not going to tell you anything of the sort. It is as I wrote above. God commands all men everywhere to repent, and if they do not, they are in big trouble.

God commands all to come to repentance, and He will receive all who do (John 6:37). The others will indeed be held responsible for their wicked disobedience. We can be absolutely sure that you understanding of God's command is well and truly up the creek.

Well you really did not ask me that question but since I actually trust what the bible says then logically I am awaiting the return of my Lord or being called home whichever comes first. Under your deterministic theology man really can not have a free will can he since God controls all things. It is good of you to admit that man has a God given free will and he can use that will to accept or reject Christ Jesus. Your idea that God only opens certain hearts so they will respond is counter to what the bible shows.

See here you go again being selective with your theology. You want a God that controls all things but then want one that does not all depending on the situation. God is sovereign but for some reason you actually do not want to let Him be sovereign but rather He has to operate within the constraints of your theology. Yes Spurgeon was a 5 point Calvinist when he was young but his views were changing as he got older. I have heard Calvinist preaching.

Now I did not expect you to agree so what you are saying then is that all men have the ability to repent and will be held responsible for their choices. Now God being a righteous judge will only judge them for something they actually have control over would you not agree? So if man is saved by the grace of God then logically that grace must be available to all men so your idea of "Irresistible Grace" only being provided to a limited number of men is logically wrong.

As for Gods command that all come to repentance it is actually an invitation to all which fits well with His desire that all come to repentance. But since your theology requires that God determine all things and since He commands all to come to repentance it would seem that it is your understanding that is truly up the creek that is unless you are going to now promote universalism.

 

[AustinC]

Well you really did not ask me that question but since I actually trust what the bible says then logically I am awaiting the return of my Lord or being called home whichever comes first. Under your deterministic theology man really can not have a free will can he since God controls all things. It is good of you to admit that man has a God given free will and he can use that will to accept or reject Christ Jesus. Your idea that God only opens certain hearts so they will respond is counter to what the bible shows.

See here you go again being selective with your theology. You want a God that controls all things but then want one that does not all depending on the situation. God is sovereign but for some reason you actually do not want to let Him be sovereign but rather He has to operate within the constraints of your theology. Yes Spurgeon was a 5 point Calvinist when he was young but his views were changing as he got older. I have heard Calvinist preaching.

Now I did not expect you to agree so what you are saying then is that all men have the ability to repent and will be held responsible for their choices. Now God being a righteous judge will only judge them for something they actually have control over would you not agree? So if man is saved by the grace of God then logically that grace must be available to all men so your idea of "Irresistible Grace" only being provided to a limited number of men is logically wrong.

As for Gods command that all come to repentance it is actually an invitation to all which fits well with His desire that all come to repentance. But since your theology requires that God determine all things and since He commands all to come to repentance it would seem that it is your understanding that is truly up the creek that is unless you are going to now promote universalism.

Do you trust what the Bible says? That truly is the question.
Certainly, you trust your interpretation, as your narrative is needed in order to place man on the pedestal you have him on.
Second, your interpretation is closest to universalism, especially in comparison with Martin. It's actually laughable that you could twist your own mind into a pretzel where you accuse Martin of universalism. Unless, Martin teaches a universal atonement (like you do), you cannot imply universalism on a person who sees God as atoning for a particular people.

 

[KenH]

I don't have a problem with that as we all know that He will return at the appointed time. What I am saying is that the Rev 22:17 is not a command for Christ to return it is the HS and the bride entreating Him to return soon. Try reading the text and what I wrote without the Calvinist glasses.

I have no idea what kind of thought process you went through to think that I ever said that one can "command' Christ to return. Can you provide me with the quote where you arrived at such an erroneous conclusion?

 

[DaveXR650]

What I se in your response is that you are ignoring the scriptures I posted. Would you care to provide scripture that disproves what I had posted. You make claims that you do not backup. We all know that God is sovereign but where are your verses that clearly show God granting faith unto salvation.

I know you're going back and forth with 3 different people at once but I don't really know how to respond to this when I agreed with your post.

What did you miss in the scripture I posted? Did you not see that it is the person that hears and believes are the ones that are saved? Those that confess Christ Jesus are saved? These are not hard concepts to understand as the text is clear. It seems you have a problem accepting this clear scripture as it does not align with your theological view.

There was no rejection of those clear scriptures. It's just that other scriptures show that those that hear and believe are the one's who have been supernaturally enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Other scriptures show that those that hear and believe are the elect and they were predestinated. You don't have to understand that. I personally think you can even reject that and still be a Christian. (Although a lot of Calvinists would disagree with me there.)

This is a theological discussion forum so we will discuss all the theology but I realize that most of us, and myself also, during my working days and days of raising a family were so busy that we don't have the time to go into this in such detail. So we hear the gospel, repent of our sins and try to do everything after that that we can understand as being God's will as taught to us when we go to church and read the Bible. That's it. And it is sufficient.

But if you do have the time and inclination to look at theology, what we call Calvinism does the best job of trying to explain these things in a systematic way. I do think that in the TULIP and in the WCF, there is an oversimplification of how the Holy Spirit works and how and when supernatural light and grace is resisted. I also think there is a disconnect between Calvinistic theology and Calvinistic preaching - even among high Calvinists like Owen and Edwards, not just Spurgeon. I've said before, they sound a lot like old fashioned "Hell, Fire and Brimstone" preachers to me.

I think the problems of men reside mostly in their mindset and will. I believe supernatural light works mostly at that level. So when I say the Holy Spirit changes your will, you envision being turned into a puppet and I envision you still doing what you want to do. We will look at the same scriptures and come up with different conclusions.

It's the same with predestination and determinism. I look at something being predestinated as coming about in spite of us all doing what we want without any violation of our wills. You look at it as string puppets being manipulated by God. So once again, the same scriptures will mean something completely different to you as they do to me.

Regarding the idea of how you "decide" to become a believer, I recommend the sermon "A Divine and Supernatural Light, Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God, Shown to be Both a Scriptural and Rational Doctrine", by Jonathan Edwards. Guess what it's about.

 

[Silverhair]

I have no idea what kind of thought process you went through to think that I ever said that one can "command' Christ to return. Can you provide me with the quote where you arrived at such an erroneous conclusion?

Did I say you said that, No but then you do have the habit of making those kind of comment to me. Read what I posted regarding Rev 22:17.

 

[Silverhair]

Do you trust what the Bible says? That truly is the question.
Certainly, you trust your interpretation, as your narrative is needed in order to place man on the pedestal you have him on.
Second, your interpretation is closest to universalism, especially in comparison with Martin. It's actually laughable that you could twist your own mind into a pretzel where you accuse Martin of universalism. Unless, Martin teaches a universal atonement (like you do), you cannot imply universalism on a person who sees God as atoning for a particular people.

Well as I see it you are just making laughable comments again. You continue to deny scripture. Calvinism is not scripture and is most assuredly not the gospel. But I am sure you will hold to your man-made philosophy.

 

[KenH]

Did I say you said that, No but then you do have the habit of making those kind of comment to me. Read what I posted regarding Rev 22:17.

Whatever, Silverhair.

 

[AustinC]

Well as I see it you are just making laughable comments again. You continue to deny scripture. Calvinism is not scripture and is most assuredly not the gospel. But I am sure you will hold to your man-made philosophy.

Here, you make a broad brush, general comment with no substance or specific scripture that I deny.

Your statement is therefore just your method of avoiding the vast scripture I have posted for you over the time you and I have interacted. You are literally telling yourself a lie in order to maintain your narrative.

 

[Silverhair]

Here, you make a broad brush, general comment with no substance or specific scripture that I deny.

Your statement is therefore just your method of avoiding the vast scripture I have posted for you over the time you and I have interacted. You are literally telling yourself a lie in order to maintain your narrative.

I have responded to your vast list of scripture but you just do not like it when I point out your errors. You read into scripture what you need to find to support your man-made theology. The tree is no better than the root it comes from and in your case that root is Gnostic philosophy via Augustine and Calvin.

 

[AustinC]

I have responded to your vast list of scripture but you just do not like it when I point out your errors. You read into scripture what you need to find to support your man-made theology. The tree is no better than the root it comes from and in your case that root is Gnostic philosophy via Augustine and Calvin.

You don't respond to the text. You do as you do right here. You attack a fictional Calvin and you ignore the biblical text. You attack a fictional Augustine and ignore the biblical text.
Sliverhair, you may be one of the most disingenuous persons I have encountered in my life.

 

[Silverhair]

You don't respond to the text. You do as you do right here. You attack a fictional Calvin and you ignore the biblical text. You attack a fictional Augustine and ignore the biblical text.
Sliverhair, you may be one of the most disingenuous persons I have encountered in my life.

Your response just shows that you really have not taken the time to look into Augustine and Calvin. As i said if the root is bad so is the tree.

 

[KenH]

You attack a fictional Calvin and you ignore the biblical text. You attack a fictional Augustine and ignore the biblical text.

What John Calvin said or what Augustine said is not even the issue, regardless of how much folks such as Silverhair try to make it be.

Does the Bible teach that man fell into sin? Yes. (Romans 5:12)
Does the Bible teach that God chose His elect before the world began? Yes. (Ephesians 1:3-6)
Does the Bible teach that Christ died for His sheep with 100% total effectualness? Yes. (John 10:11, John 10:15)
Does the Bible teach that God will draw every one of His elect to Christ? Yes. (John 6:37, John 6:39, John 6:44)
Does the Bible teach that God will bring every one of His elect to glory? Yes. (John 10:28-29, Jude 1:24)

 

[AustinC]

Your response just shows that you really have not taken the time to look into Augustine and Calvin. As i said if the root is bad so is the tree.

Why would I? God's word guides my understanding?

Sliverhair, you have created a straw man.