Can't answer. Rather typical.
What is typical is your rudeness that you have just displayed.
-
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!
Can Non-Cals Explain the Sovereign Grace Of Almighty God?
- Thread starter tyndale1946
- Start date
- Status
What is typical is your rudeness that you have just displayed.
Yes, it is very rude to point out the truth.
As an Administrator and a participant on the Baptist Board for over 18 years I am quite familiar with how these threads work.
You posted your claim that God was in total control of the entire process (which I agree with). I then asked you if He was in total control of Election which you chose not to reply to.
I suggested it has become typical for you to avoid answering honest questions to which you asserted that you stand by your post even though it openly displays its own fallacy.
You then claimed to be able to foresee what I would post, after the fact, of course, as with most "prophets."
If you are not prepared to deal with the question regarding your post, just say to, nobody has claimed you were under any obligation to respond at all.
Of course your "circus of semantics" is more obfuscation as this is neither a circus, nor do I engage in what you call "semantics."
"Semantics" is the study of the meaning of words. If anything I more likely engage in "general semantics," the meaning of meaning.
The unfortunate truth is that you post opinions that are sadly flawed and indicate a lack of understanding of the topic under discussion.
So, if you don't want to respond why participate in the thread?
Yes, it is very rude to point out the truth.
First, you did not point out any truth. You in fact slandered him by accusing him of not being able to answer without a sliver of evidence.
Second, he chose to answer the way he wanted to and you act as if there is only one possible reason that he did so. Its a logical fallacy.
Third, even if what you said was truth, and it wasn't, they way in which you said it is still rude. Your post lacks compliance with posting rule number 3:
"Show grace to the other posters. When someone disagrees with you, discuss it; but be slow to offend, and eager to get into the Word and find the answers. Remember, when discussing passionate issues, it is easy to go too far and offend. Further, if we are "earnestly contending for the faith" it would be unrealistic not to expect at times to be misunderstood or even ridiculed. But please note that your words can sometimes be harsh if used in the wrong way. The anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God."
Further, your post was a personal attack since it was an accusation without foundation against him. You are an admin. Act like it.
Rockson
Active Member
Well Cals are wrong when you take the wraps off on just what they mean, "none of us" Jesus went to the cross. We didn't. Jesus descended and then ascended after three days. We didn't. Jesus went before the Father God in the Holy of Holies with his precious blood. We didn't ! Salvation was then accomplished. He did it all. We didn't!
Now he asks will you receive this great gift. We receive it knowing he did all to provide it. And that's were Cals get confused. Jesus did ALL to provide it but he did not do ALL to make us receive it. He encourages us to do so, but make us...NO. I encourage my readers to consider such would be in violation with God's gracious character of LOVE.
Well my friend it's grace BUT you've got to have a more accurate understanding of what grace means.
Well what happened with the story of the prodigal son? Who was waiting for the prodigal at home? Who was the one who made the decision to go back to the Father's house?
God convicts the heart and and encourages repentance but he doesn't make them to repent.
All God's Sovereign acts are connected to all the other aspects of his character. He does not deny himself nor change in that regard. It becomes a foolish position to take as to say God can do anything he wants to do when there clearly are things God would never do that don't make sense. Would God attempt to make a square circle? Yes a foolish crazy question. Other things are just as foolish like to say God would go cross grain of LOVE to do something unlovely, as in punishing people for something they couldn't change.
Too bad you can't answer obvious questions as well as you claim to read my mind. Of course we know why you engage in obfuscation so often.
What mind? God pulls a string and I say a phrase. The only person Calvinist can possibly debate is God. I was programmed by God to tell you that you are wrong.
"Why would a man who hates God, can't understand what God is offering, and doesn't want it anyway, accept anything?"
Ask a man who hates God. Tell us about that moment while you hated God *snap* you are regenerated.
When you went from gosh i hate God so much lemme hear this gospel here to whoops what?
Reminds me of 12 steppers, drug users or alcoholics who are convinced everyone else must be rock bottom too.
"Yes, including the fact that we did not reach out for it. We did not embrace Christ. Christ embraced us. All of Him. None of us."
Well unregenerated Cassidy while hating God decided to hear the gospel God one day. Wait that can't be right.
Someone must have forced you to hear it, tied you up at gun point, some churchers broke in the house.
Since a unregenerated God hating couldn't possibly decide to hear he gospel.
I don't think non-christians convert to Calvinism. I think only Christians who hit rock bottom intensely remorseful of their sins get the wrong kind of help on their shoulder become Calvinist.
Christians are the prime target, not unbelievers.
" And why would you reach out for a box of stinking dung, which is how the lost man views God and His "gift?""
Well there is these other pagan folks over here who say they threw their innocent sinless god-baby bubba into the volcano to appease their loving and perfectly Just volcano god. And they claim I think their holy and loving perfect volcano god is dung and I can't understand and receive their gnostic magic powers unless I was chosen and drawn by the great fire of the umpaloompa.
Everyone naturally hates the volcano god unless you accidentally read the book of mork during your natural hatred. Then he can zap you to instantaneous reconstruction.
I told those pagans about Calvinist. They said wow thats crazy, how else do you explain our earth not being one big ball of molten hot lava?
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
No need to reply. What part of "total control of the entire process" are you having trouble understanding?
Not once have I avoided answering honest questions from sincere members with no hidden agenda.
Fallacy as determined by your faulty theology.
I don't think anyone on here was surprised by your answer.
Tom, even IF I didn't have an answer, in this day and age, I could go find the answer. When I do not answer your "honest questions," it is because I choose not to. Like I said, I don't have time to play games. [Prediction - I'll be criticized for thinking the discussion of man's salvation is a "game."]
Yet when one doesn't, you level baseless accusations.
Case in point.
To say that I do not post opinions that line up with Calvinistic doctrine is a complement, Tom, not an insult.
I responded properly and thoroughly to the OP. You couldn't help but try to dissect my post. I chose not to take the time or energy to give answers with which you would never be satisfied.
So now you are saying that "election" is totally of God and has nothing to do with us?
Except the question regarding election.
Actually no. My theology is not fallacious.
The truth seldom surprises those who hold the truth in a good conscience.
Unless there is no answer that does not fly in the face of bible teaching.
No baseless accusations. Just truth. You made a no response response so you can't claim no response.
Something else you don't fully understand?
Sadly flawed opinions, as opposed to bible doctrine.
Yes, Bob, that is why it is called a "Debate" forum. If you don't want to participate in the debate why post?
Of course I won't be satisfied. False teaching that robs God of His due Glory cannot satisfy me. Taking credit for what God his done is not at all satisfying.
Rockson
Active Member
And well that's not exactly what Calvinism does??...robs God of his Glory as being a God of Love by commanding sinners to repent, knowing there's no way they can even from birth and to add insult to injury hold them accountable for not doing so? That would be leading people on giving them false hope telling them to repent which insinuates they have the ability to do so, but nope not according to Calvinists. Sorry "T" that's not very satisfying at all.
Nor is it satisfying to hear people of your way of thinking pointing fingers at ones who simply obey God and do what he says in repenting and have you claim they didn't do it....GOD DID. You need to consider they repented many people because of the goodness of God ...when they saw his good, gracious loving character it moved them to repentance. You all actually are diminishing the character of God and how people view him therefore potentially are making people want to pull away or being disillusioned the rest of their lives, and trust me I've seen that with some.
As a warden has ultimate control of a prison and a prisoner has limited movement within a cell, God had Sovereignty over all but allows sinner and saint to operate within their free will. God will not allow one to conduct outside of His permissive will. Someone cannot blow up the world just because they wish.
God is fully God allowing one to have free will. God does not want us to love Him without free will. Free Will must exist or God caused sin in the first place.
God is fully God allowing one to have free will. God does not want us to love Him without free will. Free Will must exist or God caused sin in the first place.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
"Do let me put this very plainly. Faith which receives Christ is as simple an act as when your child receives an apple from you, because you hold it out and promise to give him the apple if he comes for it. The belief and the receiving relate only to an apple; but they make up precisely the same act as the faith which deals with eternal salvation. What the child’s hand is to the apple, that your faith is to the perfect salvation of Christ. The child’s hand does not make the apple, nor improve the apple, nor deserve the apple; it only takes it; and faith is chosen by God to be the receiver of salvation, because it does not pretend to create salvation, nor to help in it, but it is content humbly to receive it." All of Grace: An Earnest Word with Those Who Are Seeking Salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ - Charles Spurgeon [emphasis mine]
I find it amusing that you use a quote from a 5 point calvinist to try to disprove calvinism.
Now look and see who Spurgeon says would come and receive that apple, uh, I mean salvation. Who? The elect? Who? The regenerate. Who? Those who had been give the faith to believe.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
I'm not trying to disprove 5-point Calvinism; I am pointing out that you are indeed in error when you stated above, "we did not reach out for [the gift of eternal life]." If you misspoke, just say so. Or, if Spurgeon is wrong, just say so.
He makes that very clear in the title, "An Earnest Word with Those Who Are Seeking Salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ."
Sounds like a "whosoever" kind of guy to me.
Neither one. You assume facts not in evidence.
Yep. Just like me. Who will? The elect, of course.
Rockson
Active Member
Neither one? You're not blowing smoke here "T"? Spugeon as pointed out said what he said about faith receiving and you've said the opposite and you claim you're not in disagreement with a very well known Calvinist? Whats fact aren't in evidence?
The Spurgeon Quote
The child’s hand does not make the apple, nor improve the apple, nor deserve the apple; it only takes it; and faith is chosen by God to be the receiver of salvation, because it does not pretend to create salvation, nor to help in it, but it is content humbly to receive it." All of Grace: An Earnest Word with Those Who Are Seeking Salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ - Charles Spurgeon
Cassidy's Statement
Yes, including the fact that we did not reach out for it. We did not embrace Christ. Christ embraced us. All of Him. None of us. Post #12
So again who is right. Cassidy or Spurgeon?
No, I didn't. Read it with understanding.
We didn't. "There is none that seeks after God." We didn't reach for it. He placed it in our hand.
Yep. All of Him.
Yes.
Rockson
Active Member
Well nice try "T". What did Spurgeon say? ==>"The child’s hand does not make the apple, nor improve the apple, nor deserve the apple; it only takes it..." You say it was placed in the kid's hand. When the last time you heard someone say, "Take this!" when all the time they've got it in their hands???
So why don't you just admit it. You and another leading Calvinist are not on the same page? I mean I don't agree with your position but your acknowledging of at least this doesn't mean you're wrong. It just has to be assessed. But you want to make it seem to appear there's no division among your ranks. Seriously ...not rather foolish?
While I appreciate your knowledge of Spurgeon in Defense Of Calvinism, Spurgeon also said this... Brother Glen
Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!
There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
It appears that our brother failed to take into account that Jesus was the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world." If Adam could be saved, and I believe he was, then every man after him could be saved as well.
- Status