confused about Calvin

Timtoolman · Jan 16, 2006

Originally posted by webdog:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Dead in sins = unable to respond, dead?
Dead to sins later in Romans = unable to sin or respond to sin?

Calvinist defining of dead shot in the head. If you let calvinist define or redefine terms it makdes a mess out of matters.(another is recieving a gift makes the reciever able to take credit in the gift for recieving it, hogwash) It is the same with thier labeling. Everyone not a calvinist is an arminian. It makes it impossiable to have an honest debate with most.
It has to be the bible that sets and defines the terms.
Also the bible does refer to those lost as being sick.

According to calvinism (or ransom) dead means dead...unable to respond, dead! That means whether spiritually dead, dead in sin, or dead to sin all means unconscious, unresponsive. I love the way calvinist's have to redefine terms to fit their theology, and then back pedal when their absolute definitions contradict Scripture. [/QUOTE]That is something that I will not get over either Web. Same as in defining someone who recieves a gift as a work. They are just not dealing honestly with words and meanings. I like the Bible's meaning of spiritual death more then I like calvinist's redefing. So I think I'll go with scripture.

Timtoolman · Jan 16, 2006

Originally posted by Ransom:
Maybe your "Logic" is "one sided"???

Or "MAYBE" your arguments are "as" incoherent as "your" writ"ing" STYLE.

What was incoherent? I have read his post on this specific thread and understand exactly where he is going. Maybe its more like a comprehensive "problem".

Me4Him · Jan 17, 2006

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by webdog:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Dead in sins = unable to respond, dead?
Dead to sins later in Romans = unable to sin or respond to sin?

Calvinist defining of dead shot in the head. If you let calvinist define or redefine terms it makdes a mess out of matters.(another is recieving a gift makes the reciever able to take credit in the gift for recieving it, hogwash) It is the same with thier labeling. Everyone not a calvinist is an arminian. It makes it impossiable to have an honest debate with most.
It has to be the bible that sets and defines the terms.
Also the bible does refer to those lost as being sick.

According to calvinism (or ransom) dead means dead...unable to respond, dead! That means whether spiritually dead, dead in sin, or dead to sin all means unconscious, unresponsive. I love the way calvinist's have to redefine terms to fit their theology, and then back pedal when their absolute definitions contradict Scripture. [/QUOTE]That is something that I will not get over either Web. Same as in defining someone who recieves a gift as a work. They are just not dealing honestly with words and meanings. I like the Bible's meaning of spiritual death more then I like calvinist's redefing. So I think I'll go with scripture. [/QUOTE]I know what ya both mean, here's a "good example" of the way they "twist scripture" that would make a contortionist green with envy.

Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The first "all men" means the total of "all men", but the second "all men" doesn't equal the same total of "all Men".

kinda like me saying,

God "LOVES" me but not "YOU", he's bringing me a "GIFT" but not you, you're "MEAN", you don't deserve any, God only created you to show me how "BAD" he can be with his "Wrath" when he cast you into the "Fire",

"YOU" were created for no other purpose than to be "Fuel for the fire". Eze 21:32

They deny preaching this, but it's the only conclusion under predestination/condemnation.

I think they "trip" over the words, "foreknowledge/predestine" without realizing the difference between them.

I'd like for a "Calvinist" to explain to me,

"WHY" God put "TWO TREES", the tree of Life/Good-evil in the garden in the first place, and gave Adam/Eve the "FREE WILL" to "CHOSE" between them to eat?

Ge 2:9 the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

"AND", where in scripture was that "CHOICE" taken away??

"JESUS" is the "TREE OF LIFE", and as Adam/Eve were given a "CHOICE" between the tree of life/Good-Evil in the garden, so does "ALL MEN" today.

De 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;

27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:

28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God,

Both "Trees" are still "AVAILABLE" today for "ALL MEN" to "CHOSE" from which they'll eat.

Adam (flesh) brought sin into the world, but man can't place the blame on Adam (flesh) for him going to hell, only by his "personal CHOICE" of which tree "HE PERSONALLY" choses to eat, is man "JUDGED", just as Adam was JUDGED.

Scott J · Jan 17, 2006

Originally posted by Me4Him:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Oh, so it doesn't get lost Me4Him... for about the third or fourth time:

Does man have the ability to thwart the perfect will of God?

Scripture says Jesus was only sent to the Jews and the reason he failed, was because they (Jews) rejected him.

Mt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Jesus said he was "WILLING" to take Jerusalem under his wing, but they "would not".

"Total Sovereignty" dictates God had no intentions of "ALLOWING" the Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah at that time. [/QUOTE] No it doesn't. Who authorized you to define terms for "our" beliefs?

The offer to the Jews like the general call of the gospel now leave the rejecters guilty of their own accord and "free will". God didn't make them sin. God didn't kill/blind them spiritually. However, the fact that they do/are works together to accomplish His perfect will.

Sovereignty includes the allowance of things. Anything God allows WILL work to accomplish His perfect will even if it involves the sinfulness of man.

Jesus said himself, said he only done the "WILL" of the Father.

Evidently, it was the "WILL" of the father for the Jews to receive Jesus as Messiah, and "THEM" (Jews) be the "Light" of Jesus around the world instead of the Gentiles.

Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

So, I ask you, was the "WILL" of the father accomplished, "per the Will" of God???

Why are you still evading? Yes or no will suffice.

I have answered your questions like those in your last paragraph. It's your turn.

Just answer the question and stop with the smoke screens.

4His_glory · Jan 17, 2006

Me4Him,

It sure sounds like you do beleive that God's will can be thwarted by man. Until you answer differntly this is what one must conclude.

Which if you do believe this I am sorry for you.

webdog · Jan 17, 2006

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Me4Him,

It sure sounds like you do beleive that God's will can be thwarted by man. Until you answer differntly this is what one must conclude.

Which if you do believe this I am sorry for you.

(HCSB)Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

Is this an example of man thwarting God's will according to the following verse?

2Pe 3:9 The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish , but all to come to repentance

4His_glory · Jan 17, 2006

Webdog,

Keep 2 Peter 3:9 in its context. Peter is talking to saved people, not the lost.

Scott J · Jan 17, 2006

Originally posted by webdog:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Me4Him,

It sure sounds like you do beleive that God's will can be thwarted by man. Until you answer differntly this is what one must conclude.

Which if you do believe this I am sorry for you.

(HCSB)Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

Is this an example of man thwarting God's will according to the following verse?[/QUOTE]No. I have answered on two or three separate equations now...

So it is time for you and Me4Him to ante up with your own direct answers.

Me4Him · Jan 18, 2006

Originally posted by Scott J:
The offer to the Jews like the general call of the gospel now leave the rejecters guilty of their own accord and "free will". God didn't make them sin. God didn't kill/blind them spiritually. However, the fact that they do/are works together to accomplish His perfect will.

Your argument is like a dog chasing it's tail, in a "circle".

God didn't make them sin, but their "punishment" was "GOD WILL".

If their punishment was God's will, "HOW" can the sin of rejection not be God's will??

We are discussing "TOTAL SOVEREIGNTY", aren't we????

Here's your argument in a "Nutshell", and it's your own words.

1. the rejecters guilty of their own accord and "free will".

2.God didn't make them sin.

3.to accomplish His perfect will.

According to your "theory", sin exist in order for God to accomplish "his will"??

Sovereignty includes the allowance of things. Anything God allows WILL work to accomplish His perfect will even if it involves the sinfulness of man.

God's preference was not to deal with sin, that's why he told Adam, "DON'T EAT",

The "PERFECT WILL" of God is walk/talk with man in a "PERFECT WORLD" without sin, as "originally created", not condemning his creation to Hell.

Sin exist "BECAUSE" of "FREE WILL" given to both mankind and the "Angels". (satan)

Neither Man or Angel will be in the "New Heaven/Earth" who hasn't made a "CHOICE" between following "God/Satan".

Calvin "ERROR" is believing sin was "God's will" to manifest his power/wrath, not so, his true will was expressed when he said, "Don't Eat", and the fact that Adam "DID EAT", proves God's will wasn't followed.

God's isn't "Proactive" with tempting/willing man to sin, but "Reactive" to sin with judgement.

"NO SIN, NO JUDGMENT", If Adam had not disobeyed the "WILL OF GOD", sin/death would not have enter the world, and there would not be an "EIGHTH DAY" or a "GWT JUDGMENT DAY",

God was finished and "RESTED" on the "SEVENTH DAY",

however the "EIGHTH DAY" became necessary because of man's "FREE WILL" to disobey/sin/Judgment.

[ January 18, 2006, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Me4Him ]

Scott J · Jan 18, 2006

1. the rejecters guilty of their own accord and "free will".

2.God didn't make them sin.

3.to accomplish His perfect will.

According to your "theory", sin exist in order for God to accomplish "his will"??

If it did not accomplish His perfect will which is His glory then it would not have been allowed to occur.

I am not quite sure why someone would struggle so badly with the concept that God can allow men to do evil of their own free will but none the less accomplish the good of it that He divinely willed in advance.

JUST STOP WITH THE EVASION AND ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Why can't you simply answer a direct question? What are you trying to hide? You know that the answer that your system demands is not consistent with the attributes of the God of the Bible, don't you?

Can man thwart the perfect will of God? Simple question. You can say "yes" or "no" then rationalize any way you want to.

Me4Him · Jan 18, 2006

Originally posted by Scott J:

Can man thwart the perfect will of God?[/b] Simple question. You can say "yes" or "no" then rationalize any way you want to.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise,

NOT WILLING that any should perish, but that "ALL" should come to repentance.

Do any "perish"??

Mt 7:13 and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

I'd suggest taking the "blinders" off, or at least enrolling in "Reading comprehesion 101".

webdog · Jan 18, 2006

Originally posted by Scott J:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by webdog:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Me4Him,

It sure sounds like you do beleive that God's will can be thwarted by man. Until you answer differntly this is what one must conclude.

Which if you do believe this I am sorry for you.

(HCSB)Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

Is this an example of man thwarting God's will according to the following verse?[/QUOTE]No. I have answered on two or three separate equations now...

So it is time for you and Me4Him to ante up with your own direct answers. [/QUOTE]I asked you to define "perfect will". Until I know what you mean by that, I can't answer anything.

johnp. · Jan 18, 2006

I asked you to define "perfect will". Until I know what you mean by that, I can't answer anything.

Wow man! A reason for not answering any questions is a novel approach.

john.

EdSutton · Jan 18, 2006

about Calvin? Obviously, with 15 pages, some are, anyhow!
Ed

Scott J · Jan 19, 2006

Originally posted by Me4Him:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scott J:

Can man thwart the perfect will of God? Simple question. You can say "yes" or "no" then rationalize any way you want to.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise,

NOT WILLING that any should perish, but that "ALL" should come to repentance.

Do any "perish"??

Mt 7:13 and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

I'd suggest taking the "blinders" off, or at least enrolling in "Reading comprehesion 101".

[/b][/QUOTE]Yes or no will suffice.

Scott J · Jan 19, 2006

Originally posted by webdog:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by webdog:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Me4Him,

It sure sounds like you do beleive that God's will can be thwarted by man. Until you answer differntly this is what one must conclude.

Which if you do believe this I am sorry for you.

(HCSB)Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

Is this an example of man thwarting God's will according to the following verse?[/QUOTE]No. I have answered on two or three separate equations now...

So it is time for you and Me4Him to ante up with your own direct answers. [/QUOTE]I asked you to define "perfect will". Until I know what you mean by that, I can't answer anything. [/QUOTE]That which God has purposed to happen. The complete fulfillment of His will. That which God has predestined, preordained, and predetermined. That which God has "elected".

Me4Him · Jan 21, 2006

Originally posted by EdSutton:
about Calvin? Obviously, with 15 pages, some are, anyhow!
Ed

Only about 50% or so, the "other" 50% know what they're talking about.

EdSutton · Jan 21, 2006

Hang in there, Me4 We'll get to this before too long. You do recall I'm the one who said they are no different, don't you? Hey, I'm a no point Calvminian!
Heh! Heh! Ed

David Mark · Jan 22, 2006

I tend to think (at least currently) that there isn’t a man or woman, in the past, in the present or in the future that could have a free will that is stronger than God’s free will. I currently cannot see a precedent or example of a man’s will being stronger than God’s will. I cannot see that anything that God wants to happen could fail. If God’s free will was for me to be saved and I ended up not being saved, then my free will would have been stronger than God’s will. My mind cannot comprehend that God would want something to happen but not be willing or even able to “make” it happen, considering who he is and what he is capable of.

If God imposes his will for salvation or forces his will for salvation on me, then I will consider myself blessed. I prefer that he make those kinds of decisions for me. My natural will is just too depraved and self-destructive. I need a Savior who can override my natural self will and save me, even from myself.

If there was a precedent or example of a man or woman in the Old or New Testament who successfully resisted God’s will, then I might reconsider. I am not talking about disobedience, struggling with the truth or making mistakes, I'm talking about successfully resisting God’s will for him or her. I don’t see it in Scripture yet.

Dave.

johnp. · Jan 22, 2006

Hello Dave.

If God imposes his will for salvation or forces his will for salvation on me, then I will consider myself blessed.

Amen.

..."He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes." 1 sam 3:18.

john.

confused about Calvin

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member