Bob, your texts prove nothing. You cannot seriously think that the quotes from Psalm 58:3 and Isaiah 48:8 are in any way literal? I have shown from Isaiah 7:16, for example, where we are clearly told that there is a time of innocence for all infants. No one is disputing that these will one day actually sin. But, to suggest that they are sinful in the womb, is complete nonsense. What crime have they committed, then? Can they accept or reject Jesus Christ? Can they believe or disbelieve the Gospel? All you are doing is arguing from Calvinistic theology, and presenting Scriptures that have no bearing on what is being discuessed here. So, by your argument, you are saying that everyone is born a "sinner"? Yet, a "sinner" is someone who actually comnmits an act of sin.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calvinism needs to be Redefined
- Thread starter icthus
- Start date
Bob Krajcik
New Member
icthus,
In my opinion, you need to deal with Scripture and stop trying to refute a system you have defined with your own mind, with another system.
Say, it seems you have been doing a good deal of redefining Calvinism, so perhaps that is why you named this thread as you did. Reading some of your representations I did not recognize you were describing Calvinism, except that you insisted your words did define it. Perhaps you could seek to get some agreement among various persons that what you say does actually define Calvinism, and then all could be working with the same definitions.
By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
In my opinion, you need to deal with Scripture and stop trying to refute a system you have defined with your own mind, with another system.
Say, it seems you have been doing a good deal of redefining Calvinism, so perhaps that is why you named this thread as you did. Reading some of your representations I did not recognize you were describing Calvinism, except that you insisted your words did define it. Perhaps you could seek to get some agreement among various persons that what you say does actually define Calvinism, and then all could be working with the same definitions.
By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
OK, lets deal with Scripture.
Why does it say, "For BEFORE the child know to refuse the evil and choose the good" (Isaiah 7:16), and "neither having done ANY good or evil" (Romans 9:11)? What do you think "before" is used for? and "neither having committed any good or evil"? Why use this language, which clearly is done for the purpose of showing a "time" in their lives when they did NOT have any knowledge of right or wrong. I want you to respond to these Scriptures.
Why does it say, "For BEFORE the child know to refuse the evil and choose the good" (Isaiah 7:16), and "neither having done ANY good or evil" (Romans 9:11)? What do you think "before" is used for? and "neither having committed any good or evil"? Why use this language, which clearly is done for the purpose of showing a "time" in their lives when they did NOT have any knowledge of right or wrong. I want you to respond to these Scriptures.
Bob Krajcik
New Member
No, you say that, but I do not find the Scriptures agree with you.
Isaiah 7:16 (KJV) For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Even an adult believer has things to learn. Do you imagine that a person is saved, then they immediately know all things? Being ignorant does not equal innocence. Were you ignorant of a stop sign, and drove through without stopping, do you suppose you would be excused were and officer of the law to observe you, or what if you were speeding because you missed the sign?
By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
June 7, 2005
So, what of Romans 9:11? Can you not read the plain language there? "neither having done any good or evil". Is this not clear to you? Its very plain to me what this means. That this is a time when an infant does NOT know the difference between right and wrong. As God Himself says in Jonah 4:11
Bob Krajcik
New Member
Perhaps I will deal with those passages, but not today. You have shown me no place where we would have place to build. Milk must go before strong meat; the foundation must be laid before we attempt to raise the superstructure. All I have seen you do is disagree with what is said regarding sovereign grace, but you have not given valid reason from Scripture to support your position. Of coarse, that is likely your opinion of what this foe you call Calvinism offers in reply to your answers. All you have made clear, in my estimation, is that you do not like sovereign grace, but you have hidden any valid reason for rejecting the doctrine. If you would give clear reason for rejecting what is said, it would seem there might be reason to “raise the superstructure” but IMO you have not.
By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
I already dealt with Rom 9:11 and Icthus didn't like it because it showed that he was incorrect on his interpretation.
The other passages he claims are "not literal." Well isn't that convenient. Who gets to pick and choose which ones are literal or not?
BTW, I don't think any Calvinist denies that there is a time when babies don't know right from wrong (or adults for that matter). But the point is that they are still sinners and still responsible.
The other passages he claims are "not literal." Well isn't that convenient. Who gets to pick and choose which ones are literal or not?
BTW, I don't think any Calvinist denies that there is a time when babies don't know right from wrong (or adults for that matter). But the point is that they are still sinners and still responsible.
Bob Krajcik
New Member
Romans 9:11 (KJV) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
The favour was given to Jacob, while the other was rejected, not based on works, but icthus, since you refuse that God has chosen His people in Christ before the foundation of the earth, there is little left to say.
By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
June 7, 2005
The favour was given to Jacob, while the other was rejected, not based on works, but icthus, since you refuse that God has chosen His people in Christ before the foundation of the earth, there is little left to say.
By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
June 7, 2005
Bob Krajcik
New Member
Pastor Larry,
I agree, you have shown very much, and so have others, so these that have been posting regular in opposition to sovereign grace seem to have had more shown them about the doctrine than some that embrace and hold the doctrine precious. The foundation has been rejected so what is there to build on? A reasonable and clear answer showing why the doctrine is rejected would be a help.
I agree, you have shown very much, and so have others, so these that have been posting regular in opposition to sovereign grace seem to have had more shown them about the doctrine than some that embrace and hold the doctrine precious. The foundation has been rejected so what is there to build on? A reasonable and clear answer showing why the doctrine is rejected would be a help.
Why do you Calvinists like to twist Scripture to say something that it dones NOT. There is nothing in this passage about election to salvation. If you were honest, you will accept what Paul says about God's choice here. It is very clear, that the "older shall serve the younger". This is the only choice that is referred to here. Show me where "election to salvation" is mentioned in this passage?Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
Romans 9:11 (KJV) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
The favour was given to Jacob, while the other was rejected, not based on works, but icthus, since you refuse that God has chosen His people in Christ before the foundation of the earth, there is little left to say.
By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
June 7, 2005
What do you think v. 6 is about if not salvation? What about v. 8, vv. 30-31, 10:1, 10: 4, etc? All these verses indicate very clearly that the context is about salvation. And that doesn't count the verses that actually make the argument that it is about salvation.
Larry, what difference does it make if you can find verses around this one that speaks of salvation? Don't try to force the issue by trying to get verses 11 and 12 to support something that it just does not. Let me give you the verses:
"for not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election, might stand; not of works, but of Him Who calls, it was said to her; the greater shall serve the lesser"
We all know that "election" here refers to God's preference, where He preferred Jacob over Easu. And it was with this in mind, that God worked out His plans through His choice. There is no indication to suppose that salvation is here being referred to in any way. The very fact that Paul goes on to say in verse 13, "Jacob I loved, but Easu I love less", shows that preference of persons is here referred to, and not ones salvation. The Calvinist hopes to see his "doctrines" in every verse!
Congratulations Larry - you posted a good election passage - one of your better - I must applaud
The problem is you forget my viewpoint - in all my arguing I may appear to deny election - but I in fact believe that election does in fact exist - BUT NOT AS THE NORMATIVE EXPERIENCE!
I realize this must confuse you to no end - but just think how cursed you'd have to be to truly understand my correct and Biblical viewpoint. :chuckle:
I just leave election out of my arguments - because y'all argue for election as the normative experience and it is not - it is God superimposing His SOVEREIGN will onto mankind in such a way as to halt corruption or improve the spiritual lot of mankind. I refer to the Flood - Pharaoh's heart - Jesus human incarnation - and of course good ol Paul.
Free choice offered through a universal call is the NORMATIVE experience - but God knowing that mankind is gonna screw it up - stacks the deck by calling great men such as Paul - Noah - and other Christians of note.
I do not deny election - I deny that it is the ONLY way. Choice must be made - Responsibility must be mans to sin - not God's - and dont pull that lame oh Adam sinned we all guilty of that - fine then you are guilty of Hitler killing Jews Larry and Krajick - oh if you prefer something different - you are guilty of China/India killing Christians. They sinned its your fault.
The problem is you forget my viewpoint - in all my arguing I may appear to deny election - but I in fact believe that election does in fact exist - BUT NOT AS THE NORMATIVE EXPERIENCE!
I realize this must confuse you to no end - but just think how cursed you'd have to be to truly understand my correct and Biblical viewpoint. :chuckle:
I just leave election out of my arguments - because y'all argue for election as the normative experience and it is not - it is God superimposing His SOVEREIGN will onto mankind in such a way as to halt corruption or improve the spiritual lot of mankind. I refer to the Flood - Pharaoh's heart - Jesus human incarnation - and of course good ol Paul.
Free choice offered through a universal call is the NORMATIVE experience - but God knowing that mankind is gonna screw it up - stacks the deck by calling great men such as Paul - Noah - and other Christians of note.
I do not deny election - I deny that it is the ONLY way. Choice must be made - Responsibility must be mans to sin - not God's - and dont pull that lame oh Adam sinned we all guilty of that - fine then you are guilty of Hitler killing Jews Larry and Krajick - oh if you prefer something different - you are guilty of China/India killing Christians. They sinned its your fault.
It is called context. Verses have meaning in their context. You can't rip them out of context as you are doing and make them mean something. Their meaning is determined by what's around them. That is one of hte most basic principles of Bible study. You have to ask the question, What is the author talking about in this passage?
The only way you know what vv. 11 and 12 are talking about is by reading the context around them. I am forcing the issue with you because you have tried to separate vv. 11 adn 12 from the context in which they are written.
But study the context. The point is the "why" of God's choosing, not "what" he chose them to. That is so important to recognize. When you study the passage, you see very clearly it is about God's choice for salvation. The examples of Jacob and Esau and Pharaoh are examples of the "why" or God's choosing, not the "to what." Paul is arguing that God chooses based on his own will, not based on the will, or running of others.
No he doesn't. But he doesn't ignore it when it is there.
You want to ignore the context because you have no answer for it. Therefore you declare that it doesn't matter what the verses around it say. That doesn't work.
F
FrankBetz
Guest
No, Larry, the "doctrine" is only there when the reader demands it, as you do.
In harmony with all Scripture, Calvinism is false.
The Calvinist has to alter the Word of God in definition to mortar his belief system, the only problem is that he uses untempored mortar.
Jesus never said, "Whosoever will, that is, I elect...."
In harmony with all Scripture, Calvinism is false.
The Calvinist has to alter the Word of God in definition to mortar his belief system, the only problem is that he uses untempored mortar.
Jesus never said, "Whosoever will, that is, I elect...."
F
FrankBetz
Guest
Uh... I am a missionary and I am moderatly calvinistic because I think it is biblical. In fact if I did not believe that God sovereingly works to save men, I would be greatly discouarged!!
Almost all of the great Baptist missionaries of the past were Calvinists- William Carrey, Judson. Charles Spurgeon was a dynamic soul winner and a strong Calvinist so don't beleive that bunk that Calvinism kills missions. The opposite is true- if fules it. </font>[/QUOTE]Then why are youi "moderately" calvinist?
Seems there is question in the calvinistic theology? Of course, all false doctrines need to be questioned, then dumped.
God is Sovereign. Spurgeon was only a moderate calvinist, that is what kept him going. I am speaking from experience, friend. I know several churches that have adopted calvinism that are almost shutting their doors.
It is a direct contradiction to be actively soul winning and belive that God will save all that will be saved without the will of each being givne over to the will of God. And that not by force, but of a willing heart to repent. That which godly sorrow can only work.
Sure God is Sovereign in who can be saved, but it is still whosoever will.
Most people don't call five pointers "moderate Calvinists."
Where is the contradiction? There is no contradiction at all, that I know of.
"But"??? These are not opposites. They are true, and that is what Calvinism teaches.
Nope. I don't demand it at all. I tried to get away from it, but Scripture was too clear. I could no longer set myself up as an authority over Scripture. I had to change my beliefs to correspond to what God revealed.
What have we altered? Everytime this charge has been made, it has fallen short of being proved. Maybe you have a new passage or something. If so, start a thread and take your shot.
Did someone claim that he did?
F
FrankBetz
Guest
Post removed for being off topic. If you wish to discuss these verses, start your own thread and discuss them. You were previously told to do that.
[ June 08, 2005, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
[ June 08, 2005, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
F
FrankBetz
Guest
Some of us know the truth about Spurgeon. 5 point calvinist award themselves with their ideals, then they place him on the Throne, removing the LORD from His Sovereignty! Another impossibility.
All things are possible "WITH" God, but the calvinistic theology is not WITH God.
The contradiction is in limited atonement as the calvinist believes God's choosing only those who will be saved regardless of their own, individual, Divinley appointed will.
I dealt with your gray area you introduced.
The only way calvinism can hold water is to deny the will of man, but then your arguement is with God, that would of course be of your own will.
To think that God allows man to sin, as the elect, then would have God as permissive against the very thing He hates/ SIN!
Now, let's see how you weasel out that statement!