Can we conclude that Calvinism is a relatively NEW doctrine?

[Skandelon]

Frankly you did good!

:laugh: Ok brother, ok...whatever you need to tell yourself... but just because you imposed the "Reformed" purposes into my definition of Sovereignty doesn't mean it supports your premise. It just means you are being purposefully misleading, daft or you've still yet to understand the distinction between our views on this matter. I'll presume the latter...

 

[quantumfaith]

You liked Aarons response also....:laugh::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I hope you noticed that I did use quotes.

 

[Skandelon]

The picture you paint of the Creator of the Universe and our Savior is that of an indecisive, weak leader.

Huh? Please quote the exact phrase I used that lead you to this conclusion, so I can see exactly how badly you misunderstood me. Or do you just presume that any leader who doesn't control the nature, desires and ultimately the good and bad choices of everyone is a weak and indecisive leader?

God was not in Christ, Christ is God.

You'll need to debate that with Paul as I was referencing his words in 2 Cor 5:19: "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ..."

We all know Christ is God, obviously...

If anyone perishes it was God's will.

Again you'll need to take that up with Paul as I was referencing his words in 2 Thess 2:10: "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

It's not God's desire that any perish, but for all to come to repentance. He doesn't pleasure in the perishing of the wicked.

In all of your posts you have never explained how someone can reject the truth that never heard the Gospel, since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

You've read all my posts? Or maybe you mean "all" like Calvinists mean "all" and really just mean a few? :laugh:

I've spoken of those who don't hear the gospel numerous times but if you'd like to discuss it again, start a new thread.

 

[OldRegular]

:laugh: Ok brother, ok...whatever you need to tell yourself... but just because you imposed the "Reformed" purposes into my definition of Sovereignty doesn't mean it supports your premise. It just means you are being purposefully misleading, daft or you've still yet to understand the distinction between our views on this matter. I'll presume the latter...

Now you are resorting to pejoratives. You routinely say that "begging the question" is the lowest form of debate or words to that effect. I would say that use of pejoratives in debate is lower than a snakes belly!

In your post you gave a patently false definition the Sovereignty of God according to what you call Calvinism. That is fine with me. I am not a Calvinist!

Than you gave a definition of the Sovereignty of God that you think puts those of us who believe the Doctrines of Grace in a bind. It didn't work. I show you that your definition of the Sovereignty of God is faulty if you expect it to defend the doctrine of the "free will of unregenerate man"!

That being said it was well put and I commend you!. I quote it again so it might be impressed in your mind.

Scandelon's Definition of the Sovereignty of God
True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

When God saved me at the age of 34 I thought as many do. I believed God had to draw but I had to accept. As I studied Scripture I came to see myself as God must have seen me. I remembered Scripture, Scripture that my Father told me, Scripture that said God had ordained, chosen, certain people to Salvation. Believing Scripture is the inerrant Word of God it became obvious that if God ordained or chose certain to Salvation He would ordain or decree the means to save them. I found those Scripture also! I praise God for His limitless Grace that saved a wretch like me.

 

[Skandelon]

Now you are resorting to pejoratives. You routinely say that "begging the question" is the lowest form of debate or words to that effect. I would say that use of pejoratives in debate is lower than a snakes belly!

I said I'm presuming the latter, which was that you still simply don't understand...nothing pejorative about that...just self evident fact based on your response.

Than you gave a definition of the Sovereignty of God that you think puts those of us who believe the Doctrines of Grace in a bind. It didn't work.

It only doesn't work if you presume that 'God's purposes' (the term I used) is to irresistibly attempt to save people, but can't because their unwilling...which is silly. God's purpose is to save the willing in our system. You're imposing your understanding of God's purposes onto my terms and then claiming it doesn't work.

Listen, I'm not going to keep spelling it out. You either get it or you don't. I think the majority of those reading along got it, so I'll leave it there.

 

[SovereignMercy]

It's not new if you believe all the Word of God and only the Word of God.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying: " Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.

Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.

"I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

"I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.

"Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."

 

[SovereignMercy]

Free-willers are confused as to Who has free will. It's God, not man.

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; there is none who does good. God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. Every one of them has turned aside; they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one.

Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but to Your name give glory, because of Your mercy, because of Your truth. Why should the Gentiles say, "So where is their God?" But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.

For I know that the LORD is great, and our Lord is above all gods. Whatever the LORD pleases He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places.

 

[Skandelon]

Free-willers are confused as to Who has free will. It's God, not man.

Fallacies:
1. False Dichotomy - the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking.

2. Question begging - presuming true the very point up for debate.

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; there is none who does good. God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. Every one of them has turned aside; they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one.

Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but to Your name give glory, because of Your mercy, because of Your truth. Why should the Gentiles say, "So where is their God?" But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.

For I know that the LORD is great, and our Lord is above all gods. Whatever the LORD pleases He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places.

Amen! :godisgood:

 

[OldRegular]

It only doesn't work if you presume that 'God's purposes' (the term I used) is to irresistibly attempt to save people, but can't because their unwilling...which is silly.

You better believe it is Silly, particularly in light of your definition of the Sovereignty of God. It is you who insists that God saves people against their will. I don't! You now want to ignore that wonderful definition of the Sovereignty of God! So just to refresh your memory one more time:

Scandelon's Definition of the Sovereignty of God
True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

I don't see any coercion in the above definition. I see a loving God who sent His Son for you and me! God certainly did not save me against my will. I yearned deeply for the peace He gave me! That sure doesn't sound like coercion to me and it certainly doesn't sound like "I had to give God permission" to save me!

Listen, I'm not going to keep spelling it out. You either get it or you don't. I think the majority of those reading along got it, so I'll leave it there.

You routinely dodge the discussion when the discussion does not go your way. Your routine response is to accuse folks of Begging the Question. And then there is the accusation that we are simply unable to comprehend the brilliance of your reasoning. You use dismissive expressions such as

Listen, I'm not going to keep spelling it out.

and

You either get it or you don't.

or

you still simply don't understand

or

I can see exactly how badly you misunderstood me

or

Brother, you are not following my argument.

I would also point out Skandelon that you are not talking to children on this Forum so please don't act like one.

 

[Skandelon]

OR,

Pointing out the self-evident fact that your replies don't reflect understanding of my point isn't meant to insult. It is meant to inform you and others reading that your replies are not reflecting one who has understood the point being made.

I'm sorry that you feel I was insulting. You have always appeared to me as a 'no-nonsense, tell it like it is' kind of guy so I was skipping the pleasantries. If I've offended, I apologize.

Now, one last time, when I say 'God purposes' I don't mean what you mean. I don't believe God desires to effectually save a preselected number of people to the neglect of the rest, as you do. I don't believe God is attempting to save people regardless of their wills. I believe that God's purpose is to save those who freely come to him when they are called. If you read my interpretation of Sovereignty with that in mind, it makes perfect sense and is not confounded as you have tried to make it seem.

When you say the word 'sovereign' you mean one thing, and when we say it we mean another. Thus, if you read your meaning into our terms and then claim our statements must support your views then you are MISREPRESENTING US either purposefully (which is dishonest) or unintentionally (with is a lack of understanding). I believe it is the latter with you, which you are insulted by but I can't do much about that. It is just a fact.

 

[Skandelon]

Maybe Tozer can explain it better:

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God

 

[webdog]

You better believe it is Silly, particularly in light of your definition of the Sovereignty of God. It is you who insists that God saves people against their will. I don't! You now want to ignore that wonderful definition of the Sovereignty of God! So just to refresh your memory one more time:



I don't see any coercion in the above definition. I see a loving God who sent His Son for you and me! God certainly did not save me against my will. I yearned deeply for the peace He gave me! That sure doesn't sound like coercion to me and it certainly doesn't sound like "I had to give God permission" to save me!

Hold on a minute. Doesn't your side state man's natural state is enmity against God, even the "elect" at one point due to being born dead? If He didn't save you against this will, what did He do? How did you come to eventually cooperate?

 

[OldRegular]

When you say the word 'sovereign' you mean one thing, and when we say it we mean another.

I realize many people read into Scripture those things they choose to do. I believe it is called eisegesis. However, I fail to see how there can be multiple meanings to the sovereignty of God.

Thus, if you read your meaning into our terms and then claim our statements must support your views then you are MISREPRESENTING US either purposefully (which is dishonest) or unintentionally (with is a lack of understanding). I believe it is the latter with you, which you are insulted by but I can't do much about that. It is just a fact.

I realize that your supposed definition of the "Calvinist" view of the Sovereignty of God was spurious and that is OK; I expected nothing else. That being said perhaps the mistake I made was assuming that you were making a good faith effort in presenting your definition of the Sovereignty of God, particularly since I saw nothing in that definition that I considered incorrect, inappropriate, or devious. But perhaps I am still naive, even in my old age. I will not make that mistake again!

As I said above: I fail to see how there can be multiple meanings to the sovereignty of God. In fact I don't believe there can be.

 

[Skandelon]

I fail to see how there can be multiple meanings to the sovereignty of God.

I know it's difficult to entertain another perspective besides your own, but that is what is required if you want to actually engage that other perspective rather than "strawman" and "question beg" it to death.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

I realize that your supposed definition of the "Calvinist" view of the Sovereignty of God was spurious and that is OK; I expected nothing else.

Case and point...

Done.

 

[OldRegular]

Sovereign Mercy, Be careful. When we assume Scripture to be true then we are accused of "begging the question".

 

[OldRegular]

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle


Case and point...

Done.

Is that what is called an "ad hominem" attack O Wise one.

Is this all you have to contribute: routine accusation of "begging the question", pejoratives, and now "ad hominem" in response to all who do not accept your flawed reasoning or eisegesis? How the mighty have fallen!

 

[webdog]

Hold on a minute. Doesn't your side state man's natural state is enmity against God, even the "elect" at one point due to being born dead? If He didn't save you against this will, what did He do? How did you come to eventually cooperate?

OR, can you take a moment out of your spitting match to answer this?

 

[OldRegular]

Hold on a minute. Doesn't your side state man's natural state is enmity against God, even the "elect" at one point due to being born dead? If He didn't save you against this will, what did He do? How did you come to eventually cooperate?

If you have the opportunity listen to the very civil discussion on Salvation between Paige Patterson, an Arminian and one point Calvinist, and Albert Mohler a 5 point Calvinist. Patterson is, I believe, current president of Southwestern Seminary. Mohler is president of Southern Seminary. When addressing the issue you raise Mohler has the following explanation: God is able to change the will of the unwilling or God wills the unwilling to believe [Or similar words]. I have no wish to further expand on what Mohler says but a similar thought occurred to me as I was reading Skandelon's definition of the Sovereignty of God which I present one more time. I underline the pertinent part:

True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

Now as to Mohler's remark that God wills the unwilling to believe I would call that the "New Birth" or regeneration and there are many who believe the Doctrines of Grace who have a similar opinion. I hope that answers your question.

 

[webdog]

If you have the opportunity listen to the very civil discussion on Salvation between Paige Patterson, an Arminian and one point Calvinist, and Albert Mohler a 5 point Calvinist. Patterson is, I believe, current president of Southwestern Seminary. Mohler is president of Southern Seminary. When addressing the issue you raise Mohler has the following explanation: God is able to change the will of the unwilling or God wills the unwilling to believe [Or similar words]. I have no wish to further expand on what Mohler says but a similar thought occurred to me as I was reading Skandelon's definition of the Sovereignty of God which I present one more time. I underline the pertinent part:


Now as to Mohler's remark that God wills the unwilling to believe I would call that the "New Birth" or regeneration and there are many who believe the Doctrines of Grace who have a similar opinion. I hope that answers your question.

Now how is that different from what Skan said which you disagreed with? You initially said He didn't have to change your will, now you seem to concede that point which is God had to change you against your will which was enslaved to sin.

 

[quantumfaith]

I know it's difficult to entertain another perspective besides your own, but that is what is required if you want to actually engage that other perspective rather than "strawman" and "question beg" it to death.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle


:applause::applause::applause: