Calvinist preachers, teachers, theologians

[Jarthur001]

How can you disagree with this view when it is the context?

The many point is election. Lets look at the list again.

Boys...
When the 2 boys were born there was no nation. They became a nation. The blessing came because of the election. "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election"

Nation...
Mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion

Rulers....
Also Pharaoh was a person placed over a nation.

All men and all things..
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


Tis election my friend

 

[Pastor Larry]

Kind of like your false accusation against me?

And what was that?

Don't tell me what I believe and that I have "refused to learn".

I am commenting on your comments here. You have stated what you believe about what Calvinists believe. I didn’t make your beliefs up. You stated them.

You have also refused to learn what Calvinists believe by listening to Calvinists tell you what they believe.

I believe this too...except Romans 6:10 states that Christ died once for ALL...and Romans 3:23 states that ALL are sinners. Do you preach this?

Of course.

Did you know that Romans 6:10 does not say “once for all” as in “all people,” (which would be normally pan, pas, pantas) but once for all as in “all time.” It is the word efhapax. It is used in the NT with respect to time.

Again, I would just encourage you to make sure you do your homework.

It's obvious you are the one who refuses to learn, as I do not believe this.

So you are an open theist? I think in the past you have said that God knows all things, including knowing who will believe and who won’t.

I don’t want to misrepresent you. Will you please clarify for me what you believe about this?

 

[gb93433]

As Mr. Spurgeon so ably said, "I preach like an Arminian and pray as a Calvinist."

Every Christian ought to be doing that. I get the impression that Spurgeon lived what he preached in that regard.

 

[Blammo]

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Same Greek word for 'hate' is used in Luke 14:26 as in Romans 9:13. Do you think maybe our understanding of the word 'hate' is a bit too "black and white"?

 

[Brother Bob]

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Same Greek word for 'hate' is used in Luke 14:26 as in Romans 9:13. Do you think maybe our understanding of the word 'hate' is a bit too "black and white"?

Yes, I believe this comes under "put no other Gods before me".

 

[npetreley]

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Same Greek word for 'hate' is used in Luke 14:26 as in Romans 9:13. Do you think maybe our understanding of the word 'hate' is a bit too "black and white"?

Personally, I don't think "hate" is too strong a word in Luke 14:26. Jesus is talking about knowing the potential price of being a disciple. That is clear from the rest of the passage:

27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’?

In other words, the fact that you choose to be a disciple of Jesus may set you against your mother, father, wife, etc. Consider that a potential price of being a disciple. If this is what happens, and you're not prepared to hate your father, mother, wife, etc., in order to be His disciple, you're not worthy to be His disciple.

 

[Blammo]

Strongs-
3404. miseo

misew miseo mis-eh'-o
from a primary misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute);
by extension, to love less:--hate(-ful).

I understand what you are saying, Npetreley, and I agree. The word 'hate' is not too strong a word in Luke 14:26 or Romans 9:13, it is exactly the right word to use.

Though we "hate" them enough to choose Christ over their objections, we still love them enough to hope and pray that they will repent and choose Christ as well.

So, hate and love can co-exist in our feelings and actions toward others.

 

[J.D.]

I see in this thread that we're back to battling over Spurgeon. Synergists are still trying to place him in their camp. How strange.

Seems like synergists think that if they can prove that Calvinists disagree with one another over some finer, non-essential points, they have proven the system faulty. If that's what they believe they only need a short look in the mirror to see their own wranglings and condemnings over such "crucial" matters as timing of the rapture and the name of the antichrist. Some won't even talk to each other because they hold different definitions of the word "repentance".

It doesn't matter if "hate" means virulently despising, or "love less"; either way, Rom 9 can not be mistaken - God chose one over the other by His own will and for His own reasons, not anything foreseen in them.

Which leads me to another point - the word "arbitrary". When the old theologians used the word arbitrary, they didn't mean it the way we mean today. We think of arbitrary as "random", or "for no purpose". But when Spurgeon makes "arbitrary" synonymous with "sovereign", he is saying that God's decisions are not reviewable or answerable to anyone outside of Himself. His decisions are according to His own counsel. They are arbitrary only in that sense - there is no democratic process in God's Kingdom.

I have often said that God simply does not reveal to us why he chooses some and not others. But I'm cooking up a theory on that issue which may be kooky but here goes. IF there are criteria for God's choices, could it be that God purposely chooses those that man would NOT choose, in order to confound man's pride?

The problem with this theory is that scripture says "not many noble, not many wise...are chosen". So while it is apparent that God has chosen the foolish things to confound the mighty, yet he has also chosen to save some of the mighty, the noble, the wise.

What do y'all think?

 

[webdog]

So you are an open theist?

No. This was the strawman you put forth, not I.

I think in the past you have said that God knows all things, including knowing who will believe and who won’t.

Omniscience is a quality of God, no?

I don’t want to misrepresent you. Will you please clarify for me what you believe about this?

I believe God is truly omnipresent...not just in name only. By extension, true ubiquity demands that God is also omnitemporal in order to be truly omnipresent. Both calvinism and arminianism bound God to time. Too much emphasis is place on the prefix "pre" and "fore" by calvinists. There is no pre or fore with God, He's eternal. Arminianism also places God in the "now" element in time by stating He only sees the beginning from the end. I don't agree with either view. While both views have some points in focus, the big picture remains blurred.

 

[webdog]

What do y'all think?

I think it would be fair to quit using the "synergist" strawman on anyone who doesn't believe like you. I don't refer to you as a fatalist, so please don't refer to me as a synergist.

 

[npetreley]

I believe God is truly omnipresent...not just in name only. By extension, true ubiquity demands that God is also omnitemporal in order to be truly omnipresent. Both calvinism and arminianism bound God to time. Too much emphasis is place on the prefix "pre" and "fore" by calvinists. There is no pre or fore with God, He's eternal. Arminianism also places God in the "now" element in time by stating He only sees the beginning from the end. I don't agree with either view. While both views have some points in focus, the big picture remains blurred.

While I agree that it's entirely possible (if not probable) that God, alone, transcends time, God created time and communicates to man in those terms. That's why you see so many "pre"s and "fore"s in the Bible. Calvinists and Arminians and semi-pelagians didn't make them up or put them there. They were in there first. They're in there for a reason. You can't just discard them.

 

[Jarthur001]

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Same Greek word for 'hate' is used in Luke 14:26 as in Romans 9:13. Do you think maybe our understanding of the word 'hate' is a bit too "black and white"?

It all goes back to that overlooked key. Context!

We do not read the newspaper one line at a time. We read the newspaper in context. Why do we not read the Bible this way? Words alone mean nothing. Words in a group apply the meaning and give us context.

Like the English word "bar". Bar can have something to do with a lawyer or a place to drink beer, or a steal round rod object or it can mean to block or ban something..or it can mean secure something. The word alone tells us nothing. Its the context that tells us what it means.

In Romans 9..the context is showing Gods power in election. This is shown in a list of contrast...one of which is love and hate.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

This text is showing how much we should love our Lord. Hate is used to show how deep we should go with our love for Him. We can not love the world, or any thing in it, or any person as much as we love our God. That is the context.

 

[webdog]

While I agree that it's entirely possible (if not probable) that God, alone, transcends time, God created time and communicates to man in those terms. That's why you see so many "pre"s and "fore"s in the Bible. Calvinists and Arminians and semi-pelagians didn't make them up or put them there. They were in there first. They're in there for a reason. You can't just discard them.

I agree that they are in there for man, so since we know that there wasn't a fixed point in time where God "pre"destined...when did it take place? How? There is truthfully no answer to this, this side of Heaven, and anybody...(or any system) that states otherwise is only fooling themselves. I believe God's Word is written to humans in phrases and terms our finite mind can handle. Pre and fore are elements of time...measurement...for mankind. God works within time, but is also outside of it. Calvinism needs God to be bound by time, hence having Him at a set point in eternity past predestining our fates.

 

[Brother Bob]

The problem with this theory is that scripture says "not many noble, not many wise...are chosen". So while it is apparent that God has chosen the foolish things to confound the mighty, yet he has also chosen to save some of the mighty, the noble, the wise.

What do y'all think?

Are you saying the Calvinist are all ignorant?

 

[Jarthur001]

Are you saying the Calvinist are all ignorant?

no bob...just me

 

[J.D.]

I think it would be fair to quit using the "synergist" strawman on anyone who doesn't believe like you. I don't refer to you as a fatalist, so please don't refer to me as a synergist.

Synergist is a theologically correct word. I use it so I don't have to use less correct terminology like "Arminian", when a lot of you would accuse Arminius and Wesley of being "Calvinists" if you really understood their teachings.

"Synergist" covers all non-calvinist soteriological views. I don't know why you would object to that word.

I have been repeatedly referred to as a "fatalist" (maybe not by you), which is, as it is used here, nothing but a pejorative. Properly understood, fate is the opposite God's working out his own purpose in time. It has no place in the calvinistic system. This has been shown to BB many times.

 

[webdog]

In Romans 9..the context is showing Gods power in election.

...not in salvation, but to be used according to His purpose. Binding God to time will lead to God picking and choosing who He hates and loves arbitrarily.

 

[webdog]

Synergist is a theologically correct word. I use it so I don't have to use less correct terminology like "Arminian", when a lot of you would accuse Arminius and Wesley of being "Calvinists" if you really understood their teachings.

"Synergist" covers all non-calvinist soteriological views. I don't know why you would object to that word.

I have been repeatedly referred to as a "fatalist" (maybe not by you), which is, as it is used here, nothing but a pejorative. Properly understood, fate is the opposite God's working out his own purpose in time. It has no place in the calvinistic system. This has been shown to BB many times.

It is ignorant to conclude that synergist covers all non calvinists. God is the author and finisher of salvation. I have never stated otherwise, so please quit referring to me as a synergist.

 

[Jarthur001]

Binding God to time will lead to God picking and choosing who He hates and loves arbitrarily.

Ok...if you say so.


I need to do some work...check you guys later

 

[Pastor Larry]

No. This was the strawman you put forth, not I.

First, I didn’t put forth a straw man. I am asking your position, which you do not clarify.

Here is the problem, from reviewing the conversation.

I said “If you believe that God knows from the beginning who will believe and who won’t”

You replied, “I do not believe this.”

To my knowledge, the only people who do not believe that God knows from the beginning who will believe and who won’t are open theists. They do not believe God exhaustively knows the future.

Now, based on your words, you do not believe that God knows who will believe and who won’t.”

Do you believe that or not? If not, what do you believe?

Omniscience is a quality of God, no?

Yes, it is. Which is what directly leads to the problem I am trying to get an answer to.

I believe God is truly omnipresent...not just in name only.

Omnipresence isn’t at issue here.

By extension, true ubiquity demands that God is also omnitemporal in order to be truly omnipresent.

Which again, isn’t at issue.

Both calvinism and arminianism bound God to time.

No, they don’t. Calvinists believe God’s choice and knowledge exists outside of time, but that it comes to fruition in time. Arminians also believe that God’s knowledge exists outside of time, but comes to fruition in time.

However, this is a matter of omniscience, not omnipresence.

There is no pre or fore with God, He's eternal. Arminianism also places God in the "now" element in time by stating He only sees the beginning from the end. I don't agree with either view. While both views have some points in focus, the big picture remains blurred.

So explain your view. Remember, that was what I asked for, in order that I would not misrepresent you.

Do you believe God knew from before the creation who would believe in him for salvation, and who would not?