Calvinists help me understand

[evangelist6589]

What???



Welcome to planet Earth....on rare occasion, it will be common (from a merely probabalistic standpoint) that more than one person will disagree with you at the same time:

That's not "ganging up" on you....it's Planet Earth.



You also Clearly said (I quoted you from your own post here) that Winman:



I didn't even change "deny" to "denies" to make it more intelligible............it's a direct copy/paste.........



You said he denied the Lordship of Jesus Christ.....that is tantamount to calling a man an infidel. That is an indisputable fact. I can't alter facts of history, Scripture, or Soteriology to help you out of what you said......

I already said I don't think that that is what you MEANT to say....(like 3 or 4 times) in your defense. But that is exactly what you said.



I quoted you directly, and literally copy/pasted from your own post.



The fact that you dislike what you said does not mean that misquoted you....I pasted WORD FOR WORD. And that is the same as calling a man unsaved. Deal with it, they're your own words, not mine.

You deny Lordship Salvation that was what I intended to imply.

 

[Winman]

Man why are you so attacking on us???? Why call us names??? Maybe you do not fit in here so why stay?

In the past I was dumb and foolish and posted on boards with Charismatic mods. I was not looked at favorably in those sites. Yes I remember this one mod picking on me because I liked tracts, WOTM, and John MacArthur. I was disliked due to my beliefs and guess what? I no longer post there nor even have a desire to be there because I did not fit in. I am a Calvinist and was a bull in a china shop!

Give me a break, you and others have ganged up on me this past day.

And you said I denied the Lordship of Jesus. Man up and admit it, because that is what you accused me of. It is an utterly false accusation.

You said you wondered if I would deny hell. Where have I EVER said any such thing? I have talked about the rich man who died and went to hell numerous times.

You have set yourself up as a judge of other men. Just remember, you will be judged by the same standard you judge others. That is not my words, but the words of Jesus.

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

You better read that a couple of times until you understand it.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Where oh where did I ever deny hell? Would you like to produce that post

That was rich.........
I've seen a lot of your weird novelties....

like your interpretation of the Prodigal Son...

Your claim that Ninevah had a population capable of sustaining 120,000 infants..........(a numerically remarkable claim from any historical standpoint)

And I've openly disagreed with them......

I've NEVER seen you deny the reality of a literal HELL.

In what weird alternate Universe did Evan dream up THAT accusation???

 

[Inspector Javert]

You deny Lordship Salvation that was what I intended to imply.

I know.........

I said precisely that........

Here:

Maybe you didn't mean to. I don't think you actually DID mean to, I think you are referencing what you might call "Lordship Salvation"...but "Lorship Salvation" and "Lordship of Jesus Christ" are RADICALLY different terms with different meanings:

One may indeed mean "Cheap Grace" (which is what I think you meant)

 

[Winman]

That was rich.........
I've seen a lot of your weird novelties....

like your interpretation of the Prodigal Son...

Your claim that Ninevah had a population capable of sustaining 120,000 infants..........(a numerically remarkable claim from any historical standpoint)

And I've openly disagreed with them......

I've NEVER seen you deny the reality of a literal HELL.

In what weird alternate Universe did Evan dream up THAT accusation???

That's the whole point, they don't debate the scripture I post. They don't debate that the prodigal son is "alive again". They don't debate that Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh".

No, one of them will call me a Pelagian, when I would be willing to bet none of them actually knows what Pelagius believed. Then the others will come on and say, "Great post, you utterly refuted that heretic!"

That's all they've got. They just slap each other on the back and tell each other how great they are. They never refute the arguments presented them.

Oh, they might copy and paste a confession. Wow.

They can't prove or defend their own doctrine and they know it. So, they simply try to slam and slur their opponents. It's all they've got.

 

[Inspector Javert]

That's the whole point, they don't debate the scripture I post. They don't debate that the prodigal son is "alive again". They don't debate that Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh".

No, they don't.....

They turn any SCRIPTURAL argument you make into a THEOLOGICAL argument and claim you are out of the bounds of THEOLOGICAL Orthodoxy.......

They should be one and the same...and Theology should submit itself to Scripture....but too often, they argue your SCRIPTURE directly with THEOLOGY as a discipline....it's not good.

Mind you, I sometimes disagree with your Scriptural interpretations....but merely claiming you are outside of the bounds of "Theological Orthodoxy" as a Discipline means as much to me as (being a young-Earth Creationist) it means to say "The vast majority of Scientists believe that the Earth is Billions of years old, and that complicated lifeforms evolved from single-celled organisms".

I'll grant that John Calvin was a smart man......but I don't care about his Theology.

I'll also grant that Charles Darwin was a smart man......but he was the only one of the two who had a degree in Theology.

No, one of them will call me a Pelagian, when I would be willing to bet none of them actually knows what Pelagius believed.

I've read every single available extant word Pelagius ever wrote numerous times........(This is not hard to do...not much has survived)....In true to form fashion....Augustinian Gnostics burned most of what he wrote in the same way they deal with anyone who doesn't agree with them...

NONE of them have...not one. It's painfully obvious to anyone who has.

They know absolutely NOTHING about Pelagius, and they don't know the first thing about what he believed....

They'd have to read his own words to do so.
That, they won't do.....
And yes, they know absolutely nothing about the man, or what he thought.

Then the others will come on and say, "Great post, you utterly refuted that heretic!"

Yes.......and they appeal to what they call "Orthodoxy" (despite the zillions of Christian writers who have disagreed with them)....but not SCRIPTURE itself...."Orthodoxy".

That's all they've got. They just slap each other on the back and tell each other how great they are. They never refute the arguments presented them.

Because your arguments are "Biblical Theology" not "Systematic Theology".
Calvinism is Systematic Theology (on a remarkably sophisticated scale)....and that's a GOOD THING. Systematic Theology IS good.....

but it's not "Biblical Theology".

Both have their place..........both are good.
Calvinists just don't know how to draw that line.

They can't prove or defend their own doctrine and they know it. So, they simply try to slam and slur their opponents. It's all they've got.

They also have their penchant for re-defining words which you neglected to add to their tool-belt, but that's most of it, yes.

 

[evangelist6589]

No, they don't.....

They turn any SCRIPTURAL argument you make into a THEOLOGICAL argument and claim you are out of the bounds of THEOLOGICAL Orthodoxy.......

They should be one and the same...and Theology should submit itself to Scripture....but too often, they argue your SCRIPTURE directly with THEOLOGY as a discipline....it's not good.

Mind you, I sometimes disagree with your Scriptural interpretations....but merely claiming you are outside of the bounds of "Theological Orthodoxy" as a Discipline means as much to me as (being a young-Earth Creationist) it means to say "The vast majority of Scientists believe that the Earth is Billions of years old, and that complicated lifeforms evolved from single-celled organisms".

I'll grant that John Calvin was a smart man......but I don't care about his Theology.

I'll also grant that Charles Darwin was a smart man......but he was the only one of the two who had a degree in Theology.

I've read every single available extant word Pelagius ever wrote numerous times........(This is not hard to do...not much has survived)....In true to form fashion....Augustinian Gnostics burned most of what he wrote in the same way they deal with anyone who doesn't agree with them...

NONE of them have...not one. It's painfully obvious to anyone who has.

They'd have to read his own words to do so.
That, they won't do.....
And yes, they know absolutely nothing about the man, or what he thought.

Yes.......and they appeal to what they call "Orthodoxy" (despite the zillions of Christian writers who have disagreed with them)....but not SCRIPTURE itself...."Orthodoxy".

Because your arguments are "Biblical Theology" not "Systematic Theology".
Calvinism is Systematic Theology (on a remarkably sophisticated scale)....and that's a GOOD THING. Systematic Theology IS good.....

but it's not "Biblical Theology".

Both have their place..........both are good.
Calvinists just don't know how to draw that line.

They also have their penchant for re-defining words which you neglected to add to their tool-belt, but that's most of it, yes.

A great book for you to read.

The Gospel Call and True Conversion (Recovering the Gospel)

The apostle Paul gave the gospel the first place in his preaching, endeavored with all his might to proclaim it clearly, and even went so far as to pronounce a curse upon all those who would pervert its truth. Yet how sad it is that many, even among those considering themselves evangelicals, have reduced the gospel message to a few trite statements to be repeated, and view conversion as a mere human decision. In The Gospel Call and True Conversion, Paul Washer challenges such easy believism as he examines the real meaning of things like faith, repentance, and receiving Christ. He also deals extensively with the effects of saving grace that God promises in the new covenant; namely, the creation of new hearts and new people.

---
Over the past five years there has been a huge increase in the amount of books on all things "Gospel related". Added into this mix on the current Gospel-centered movement is the Recovering the Gospel series by Paul Washer. His second book in this series, The Gospel Call and True Conversion is an tour de force on how Paul gave the gospel precedence in his preaching and endeavored with all his might to clearly proclaim the gospel going so far as to pronounce a curse upon all those who would pervert its truth. Yet how sad it is that many, even among those considering themselves evangelicals, have reduced the gospel to a few trite statements to be repeated with the subsequent view of conversion as a mere human decision. In this book, Washer challenges "easy-believism" as he examines the real meaning of things like faith, repentance, and receiving Christ. He also deals extensively with the effects of saving grace that God promises in the new covenant, namely the creation of new hearts and a new people.

As I was reading The Gospel Call and True Conversion, I was also reading a forthcoming book on Mormonism from a former tenured professor at BYU. I commented to several of my friends that reading Washer's book combined with the book on Mormonism was quite a powerful combination as it helped me to see clearer than I ever have the comparisons between what biblical Christianity is and what it is not.

Washer sets his sights on forcefully correcting false ideas doing so in a very pastorally sensitive way without compromising any arguments from the Word of God. At times I thought he was forceful but not in a bad way as his direct style will help the reader understand the seriousness of the topic. Given the gravity of salvation and its importance in understanding biblical Christianity, Washer does an amazing job at highlighting how salvation is of the Lord. Having read both books in this series, what I've been impressed with is the combination of biblical theology, church history and contemporary evangelical theology as he writes to help us understand the true nature of the Gospel.

While I've read a number of works from the Gospel-centered movement, what I appreciate about Washer's contribution is his serious commitment to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture as well as his commitment to point people to Jesus Christ. In an age consumed by materialism and "easy-believism", The Gospel Call and True Conversion will takes its place alongside Finally Alive by John Piper as the only two books in recent years to seriously tackle on a lay level the issue of regeneration and related issues. Whether you are a Sunday school teacher, regular church attendee, Pastor or Christian scholar, I encourage you to pick up this book and be reminded there is nothing anyone needs more than the gospel and there is nothing more important and relevant than getting the gospel right, making it clear, and trusting the gospel to do its work of calling, saving, and securing a people for God. This great book will challenge you in all the right ways pointing you to the sufficiency of Christ alone to save. Its pastoral tone will also encourage the reader to understand salvation from the Word of God so that you may apply its truth to all areas of your life.

 

[convicted1]

Okay guys...let's get back to the topic of the OP and the book of Jonah....


I have read it like 4 times in the KJV and once in the YLT in the last couple days or so. I think that the focal point is obviously Jonah, and not the Ninevahites. It shows Jonah as an OT picture of Christ in that he was in the whale's belly three days and nights, was asleep in the bottom of the ship, was cast aside by people around him, &c., and the same things happened to Jesus.


I also see it that God used him to show him, and conversely us, how He deals with His creation. There had to be some that truly repented, seeing that Jesus referenced them in Matthew 12 and Luke 11. But I don't think anything Calvinistic or Arminianistic can truly be gleaned from this book, imo...

 

[preacher4truth]

Okay guys...let's get back to the topic of the OP and the book of Jonah....


But I don't think anything Calvinistic or Arminianistic can truly be gleaned from this book, imo...

Oh, I don't know about that, it seems God's Sovereign plan was going to be fulfilled no matter what Jonah tried to do via his 'free will'. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Yeshua1]

his deniel of original Sin is bad enough, but he does seem to skirt the boundary as to if one is able to be rightious by keeping the law, or by stating that jesus was just as us, so that would mean, or else imply, that he did not need to come Virgin born to avoid the fall, or else that we are born in a sinless state as he was in!

 

[convicted1]

Oh, I don't know about that, it seems God's Sovereign plan was going to be fulfilled no matter what Jonah tried to do via his 'free will'. :smilewinkgrin:

Touche'. The point I attempted to make is that some repentance in OT days was akin to what the sailors on the ship did when they were calling upon their gods. They were pagans to the core. I am sure some of that city truly repented, but to say every single, solitary person did, is quite a stretch.

Hey, but there were ~120,000 infants that didn't have to repent, youse nose???

 

[Winman]

Touche'. The point I attempted to make is that some repentance in OT days was akin to what the sailors on the ship did when they were calling upon their gods. They were pagans to the core. I am sure some of that city truly repented, but to say every single, solitary person did, is quite a stretch.

Hey, but there were ~120,000 infants that didn't have to repent, youse nose???

Those 120,000 persons who could not discern between their right hand and their left hand were the reason God implied he SHOULD spare Nineveh.

Jon 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

This question demands a YES answer. God was telling Jonah he SHOULD spare Nineveh. It was the RIGHT THING to do.

Why? Because little children are not guilty of sin and do not deserve death. I am not saying little children do not do wrong things, they most certainly do wrong things at times, but they are not held accountable because they do not truly understand their actions. Our courts treat little children the same way, if a three year old boy picked up his father's pistol and shot his sister to death, no court in the world would charge that little boy with a crime.

Well, maybe ONE court would;

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...boy-charged-with-attempted-murder-in-pakistan

This was the famous case of a nine month old boy being charged with attempted murder earlier this year in Pakistan. It made Pakistan the laughing stock of the world.

Later on they came to their senses and dropped all charges.

"A senior police official said that there had been 'a misunderstanding' by police and that the officer who filed the charges — planning a murder, threatening police and interfering in state affairs — has been suspended. Under Pakistani law, no child younger than 7 years old can be charged with a crime."

As bad as Muslim countries are, they will not charge little children with crime. Those who think little children are wicked sinners who deserve hell have a screw loose somewhere.

 

[Winman]

his deniel of original Sin is bad enough, but he does seem to skirt the boundary as to if one is able to be rightious by keeping the law, or by stating that jesus was just as us, so that would mean, or else imply, that he did not need to come Virgin born to avoid the fall, or else that we are born in a sinless state as he was in!

I showed you half a dozen verses that all showed Jesus was MADE of the SEED of David according to the flesh. He was made of the FRUIT of David's LOINS.

What part of that is too difficult for you to understand?

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Your argument isn't with me, your argument is with the Word of God.

The audacity of some folks to openly deny what the scriptures directly say!

 

[convicted1]

Your view has infants on par with Christ.

 

[Winman]

Your view has infants on par with Christ.

Wrong. Scripture says little children have done NEITHER good nor evil.

Rom 9:11 (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; )

Jesus did not only do NO wrong, everything he did was RIGHT. Jesus did good and righteous works. Jesus actually merited eternal life, something NO MAN has ever, or will ever do.

A little child cannot be guilty of sin because he does not understand between good and evil, but by the same token, he cannot be credited with doing good for the same exact reason.

That said, the child is guiltless, he is upright, he is without sin. He needs no repentance.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Did Jesus speak of nonsense? Jesus here spoke of 99 sheep (people) that did not go astray and need no repentance. According to Original Sin, no such persons exist, yet Jesus spoke of people who need no repentance.

And we know from Matthew 18 Jesus is speaking of little children when he repeats this parable.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Jesus is speaking of little children in Matthew chapter 18. He tells his disciples they must be CONVERTED and BECOME as little children to enter heaven. Was Jesus telling his disciples they must become wicked little sinners to enter heaven? Absurd.

Jesus warns against offending little children because they have angels who do ALWAYS behold his Father's face. Is Jesus teaching that wicked little sinners have guardian angels? Nonsense.

And once again, Jesus speaks of one sheep who left the flock and BECAME lost (he was not originally lost). Jesus searched for this one lost sheep (no man is passed by) until he found it. Then Jesus said there is more rejoicing over this one sinner who repents than ninety nine persons WHICH WENT NOT ASTRAY.

To believe Calvinism, you must believe that Jesus spoke of nonsense.

Do not believe the false doctrines of men folks, believe the Bible. :thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

In your view...babies are sinless and Christ is sinless...both on par with each other...

 

[convicted1]

In your view....kill the babies or don't tell them about Jesus....safe in heaven either way...

 

[preacher4truth]

Touche'. The point I attempted to make is that some repentance in OT days was akin to what the sailors on the ship did when they were calling upon their gods. They were pagans to the core. I am sure some of that city truly repented, but to say every single, solitary person did, is quite a stretch.

Hey, but there were ~120,000 infants that didn't have to repent, youse nose???

No touche' necessary brother, and that is not my point. This has nothing to do with 'how many' were saved, that is beside the point.

Repentance is of God, not man, Romans 2:4, so if any truly repented the glory belongs to God, not to those 'who did'. It has to do with God Sovereignly accomplishing His goal in spite of rebellious Jonah. Therefore I see DoG in this message.

 

[preacher4truth]

In addition to this to believe that every single person 'did this' would not be a 'stretch' as repentance is of God, not man, and I believe He could in fact accomplish this.

 

[convicted1]

No touche' necessary brother, and that is not my point. This has nothing to do with 'how many' were saved, that is beside the point.

Repentance is of God, not man, Romans 2:4, so if any truly repented the glory belongs to God, not to those 'who did'. It has to do with God Sovereignly accomplishing His goal in spite of rebellious Jonah. Therefore I see DoG in this message.

I agree. The focal point is Jonah, and not Ninevah. But, did you know ~120,000 infants didn't need to repent?