Cured

[skypair]

God doesn’t send his Spirit to every man in the same way.

Do you have scripture on that? Wouldn't that make God a "respecter of persons," Larry?

Like I said -- 2 men sitting in church, one responds and one doesn't. What difference in "call?" No. The difference was in the 2 men. God doesn't change -- man does. "God, the same yesterday, today, and forever." Same for His Spirit.

Through his sovereign power. Why are you so concerned about the mechanics? The “how” or “what”?

I don't think you have discovered the how and what. If you had, you would have a "know so" salvation which no true Calvinist can have.

That's one of the questions Calvinists can't answer -- "How can I be saved?" Especially if I don't believe I am "elect," how can I be saved?

Now I like your answer below -- "believe and repent." Perfect! That puts the onous right where it should be -- on MAN. But if you were the Calvinist you say you are, you would not even give me the opportunity to do this on account of "it is all of God" and we do nothing.

Basically, if a man walks into your Cal/Reform church and wants to be saved, a Calvinist hears "I want to join the church." "Good," you'd say, "we'll set you up for confirmation classes and, oh, BTW, we'll be 'confirming' our faith every week with the Apostle's Creed recited right in our services! What blessed assurance of salvation that is!"

Is it not enough that the Bible says he does it and doesn’t explain more than that? Why are you trying to get me to go past Scripture?

I don't go past scripture. It's Calvin that spent 2 years studying the Bible and came out with his "Institutes." Now seriously -- 2 years reading and writing? much of it Augustine? And came up with the same church state approach as Catholicism which he'd barely left? And nearly that same Eucharist only consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation? and nearly the same "works" pattern such that John Mac can quite credibly preach to Calvinists "Lordship Salvation" as proof of who the "elect" are. Calvin wasn't the "theologian" you give him credit for.

The “obedience of faith” is to believe on Christ for salvation, and all that it entails. You continue to err in suggesting that faith and belief are different.

Then what is "belief in vain," 1Cor 15:2 Are these the poor schmucks you say are "non-elect?" They can believe but can't ever be saved? Who therefore can't have "faith" -- that which you call "equal to" belief?

In Calvinism, both parties make a decision.

Good. And how is that not "free will?" I mean, we really couldn't call it a "decision" if we have no choice, could we? Just like the poor "non-elect" has no decision to make but to sin, the "elect" have no decision but to believe, right?

The New Covenant is a covenant with Israel, not with the church (cf. Jer 31:31-40). It involves much more than salvation, such as restoration to the land in peace, etc.

Know your covenants, Lar. Who are "the assembly of the firstborn -- the first to be "born again?" Heb 10:23 as DISTINCT from "the souls of dead men made perfect?" WE have the kingdom on earth that they are looking for. We have the heart of flesh that they are waiting to receive. You need a good study of Heb 8 -- the first covenant is "old and ready to wax away" (in Paul's time). Surely YOU know we are living under that "new covenant," don't you Lar?

It is quite common to use theological words that are not found in Scripture. We do it all the time with words like rapture, Trinity, etc.

Does that not make "total depravity," unconditional election, irresistible grace, etal. suspect as "rapture" is to you?

None. We use words as they are used in Scripture.

not all and whosoever and world and elect and foreknow and ... you don't use scripturally! Here's something you might "chew on," Lar -- I can't remember who pointed it out to me but he said that up until about 1700, the church saw much of scripture as "allegorical." That is, a repetition of Israel with a priestly hierarchy, comparative rituals, similar covenant, etc. It never dawned on them to see the new covenant as entirely new -- new cloth for the new patch, new skin for the new wine. You really need to "get on board" with what Jesus said regarding this.

God chooses to salvation those whom he does for his own glory (Eph 1), to confound the wise (1 Cor 1). Beyond that, he doesn’t tell us. Why do you insist on having answers that God has not given us?

Calvinist "boilerplate," isn't that! Stops all discussion when you feign to know all that God has told us but lead people around the blood of Christ to your "election gate" into the fold. Isn't that kinda like the "elect" son asking Dad for the keys to the car knowing that Dad owns it, insures it, maintains it and is only too willing to let his SON drive it? Little presumptuous, isn't it? Maybe he hasn't told you and you aren't his son, eh?

You say that “he chooses those who believe.” Yet as we have shown over and over again, there is no verse of Scripture that shows God’s choice to be based on belief.

How dare you! "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..." Acts 16:31 "...believe to the saving of your souls." Heb 10:39 Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Luke 8:12 "Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." Rom 10:9 "...and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." 1Cor 1:21 "...it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

Are you now saying that God doesn't choose based on belief? It's YOUR theology that needs the "major overhaul," Larry! Look me in the eye and say "It is not blasphemy for me [Larry] to say that God doesn't choose believers to salvation. Belief is the contrivance of the devil to make people think they are saved."

skypair

 

[GordonSlocum]

Do you have scripture on that? Wouldn't that make God a "respecter of persons," Larry?

Like I said -- 2 men sitting in church, one responds and one doesn't. What difference in "call?" No. The difference was in the 2 men. God doesn't change -- man does. "God, the same yesterday, today, and forever." Same for His Spirit.

I don't think you have discovered the how and what. If you had, you would have a "know so" salvation which no true Calvinist can have.

That's one of the questions Calvinists can't answer -- "How can I be saved?" Especially if I don't believe I am "elect," how can I be saved?

Now I like your answer below -- "believe and repent." Perfect! That puts the onous right where it should be -- on MAN. But if you were the Calvinist you say you are, you would not even give me the opportunity to do this on account of "it is all of God" and we do nothing.

Basically, if a man walks into your Cal/Reform church and wants to be saved, a Calvinist hears "I want to join the church." "Good," you'd say, "we'll set you up for confirmation classes and, oh, BTW, we'll be 'confirming' our faith every week with the Apostle's Creed recited right in our services! What blessed assurance of salvation that is!"

I don't go past scripture. It's Calvin that spent 2 years studying the Bible and came out with his "Institutes." Now seriously -- 2 years reading and writing? much of it Augustine? And came up with the same church state approach as Catholicism which he'd barely left? And nearly that same Eucharist only consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation? and nearly the same "works" pattern such that John Mac can quite credibly preach to Calvinists "Lordship Salvation" as proof of who the "elect" are.

Then what is "belief in vain," 1Cor 15:2 Are these the poor schmucks who are "non-elect?" Who can believe but can't ever be saved? Who therefore can't have "faith" -- that which you call "equal to" belief?

Good. And how is that not "free will?" I mean, we really couldn't call it a "decision" if we have no choice, could we? Just like the poor "non-elect" has no choice but to sin, the "elect" have no choice but to believe, right?

Know your covenants, Lar. Who are "the assembly of the firstborn -- the first to be "born again?" Heb 10:23 as DISTINCT from the souls of dead men made perfect? WE have the kingdom on earth that they are looking for. We have the heart of flesh that they are waiting to receive. You need a good study of Heb 8 -- the first covenant is "old and ready to wax away" (in Paul's time). Surely YOU know we are living under that "new covenant," don't you Lar?

Does that not make "total depravity," unconditional election, irresistible grace, etal. suspect as "rapture" is to you?

not all and whosoever and world and elect and foreknow and ... you don't!

Calvinist "boilerplate," isn't that! Stops all discussion when you feign to know all that God has told us but lead people around the blood of Christ to your "election gate" into the fold. Isn't that kinda like the "elect" son asking Dad for the keys to the car knowing that Dad owns it, insures it, maintains it and is only too willing to let his SON drive it? Little presumptuous, isn't it? Maybe he hasn't told you and you aren't his son, eh?

How dare you! "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..." Acts 16:31 "...believe to the saving of your souls." Heb 10:39 Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Luke 8:12 "Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." Rom 10:9 "...and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." 1Cor 1:21 "...it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

Are you now saying that God doesn't choose based on belief? It's YOUR theology that needs the "major overhaul," Larry! Look me in the eye and say "It is not blasphemy to say that God doesn't choose believers to salvation." That "belief is the contrivance of the devil to make people think they are saved."

skypair

Now I enjoyed that. Very good Skypair. Calvinist are still trying to figure out how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[whatever]

Do you have scripture on that? Wouldn't that make God a "respecter of persons," Larry?

I'm not Pastor Larry, but see Romans 12:3 - "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned."

Like I said -- 2 men sitting in church, one responds and one doesn't. What difference in "call?" No. The difference was in the 2 men. God doesn't change -- man does. "God, the same yesterday, today, and forever." Same for His Spirit.

Do you have scripture on that?

 

[skypair]

Tom

If you'll go back to my conversations with Blammo (starting about Post 221), you'll get the context.

I'm talking mainly here about the language we use to describe our salvation experience, not about the salvation process. I think we both would express our gratitude for God's grace in saving us, and give him glory for it.

In describing my own salvation, I clearly spoke of my response of repentance and faith. (See post 224)

God is preeminent in our salvation. I just want our language to reflect that.

You might word your testimony differently from mine. But both should reflect our soteriology.

Good. Cause last night I was thinking of Paul's testimony before to Festus and Agrippa and even to the churches -- and was noticing how much of his testimony regarded his obedience and suffering rather than God's sovereignty.

skypair

 

[GordonSlocum]

Good. Cause last night I was thinking of Paul's testimony before to Festus and Agrippa and even to the churches -- and was noticing how much of his testimony regarded his obedience and suffering rather than God's sovereignty.

skypair

This has been my observation concerning a general categorizing of theological positions:

In the conservative movement (all of it) we see the banner waved stating "we understand the Bible as Normal Literal"

I personally believe that is the only way to come to solid conclusions.

However, I have witness over and over again the blatant violation of Normal for Wooden on the Calvinist side and on the Arminian side the tendency is the opposite.

Arminians tend toward spiritualizing and dismissing "Normal" in that fashion where as Calvinist gravitate to the "Wooden" literal side.

Both sides read into Scripture that which does not exist or is not spoken of.

In my family I am in the middle neither Calvinist or Arminian. My brother is a hard nose 5 pointer and my sister is just the opposite, Charismatic, and all that this camp involves. Understanding that the verity of Arminian believers is broader than the verity of Calvinist ones. Calvinism tends to be more narrow in belief and adherence, whereas the Arminian camp is much larger and take in a very large host of interpretation and view.

I am more akin to the Arminian than the Calvinist. Arminian believers and I part in the area of the Security of the Believer but I find nothing in common with the TULIP. All be it not all who call themselves Calvinist are True Blue TULIP believers.

 

[Andy T.]

Good. Cause last night I was thinking of Paul's testimony before to Festus and Agrippa and even to the churches -- and was noticing how much of his testimony regarded his obedience and suffering rather than God's sovereignty.

skypair

What, are you kidding? Do you mean when Paul spoke here? Acts 26:12-18 (NKJV):

12 “While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now[a] send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’

Or here:

22 Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come—

And here:

29 And Paul said, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains.”

Oh, I guess you were talking about this one verse:

19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,

Paul was saved on the Road to Damascus. He was saved and given his commission from God (to go to the Gentiles). Paul's obedience to the heavenly vision was part of his santcification, after he was saved - evidence that his faith was real.

Sit back and read Acts 26 and tell me that the whole thing does not scream out that God is sovereign and He gets all the glory.

 

[skypair]

I'm not Pastor Larry, but see Romans 12:3 - "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned."

You don't get at the issue here, whatever. The issue is why did God give Paul grace? Because He respected Paul's great education? or because Paul himself believed and repented?

Do you have scripture on that?

I would THINK you would understand that God does not make exceptions to His salvation on account of persons. Was I wrong? If God "conditions" His salvation upon belief, it IS the person that needs to change their belief -- not God make an exception to His condition, right?

Here's a "for instance" that often comes up -- God's "elect" infants. You know -- the one's who were baptized into the faith by the Reform church. God makes an exception to belief and repentance so that they will be saved if they die. But then, of course, there must be "elect" adults who were baptized as infants. God "respects" some random (so far as we know) "elect" and condemns other random non-elect.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Do you have scripture on that?

Yes, 2 thes 2:13, 1 Peter 1:2, John 6:63, as well as others.

Wouldn't that make God a "respecter of persons," Larry?

Nope, just the opposite. The fact that it is totally unmerited means it has nothing to do with the person being respected. In your view, where the Spirit is given to those who repent and believe, God would be respecting those who repent and believe more than those who don't.

Like I said -- 2 men sitting in church, one responds and one doesn't. What difference in "call?" No. The difference was in the 2 men. God doesn't change -- man does. "God, the same yesterday, today, and forever." Same for His Spirit.

It is clear that you don't understand what the effectual call is. That's the only explanation for these misguided statements.

I don't think you have discovered the how and what. If you had, you would have a "know so" salvation which no true Calvinist can have.

I haven't discovered the 'how" or "what." I am not trying to. I do however have a "know so" salvation, which every Calvinist can have. You simply dont' understand Calvinism is you think that is true.

That's one of the questions Calvinists can't answer -- "How can I be saved?"

What??? We can answer this and have many times. You are saved by repenting and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now I like your answer below -- "believe and repent." Perfect! That puts the onous right where it should be -- on MAN. But if you were the Calvinist you say you are, you would not even give me the opportunity to do this on account of "it is all of God" and we do nothing.

You are continuing to reveal that you simply do not understand Calvinism.

Basically, if a man walks into your Cal/Reform church and wants to be saved, a Calvinist hears "I want to join the church."

Really? What Calvinist heard that? Please give us a source or link to a Calvinist who heard that. Otherwise, apologize for making stuff up.

Then what is "belief in vain," 1Cor 15:2

False belief, or belief that is not true saving faith. Also described in 2 Cor 13:5, James 2, and other passages.

[quoet]Are these the poor schmucks you say are "non-elect?" They can believe but can't ever be saved? Who therefore can't have "faith" -- that which you call "equal to" belief?[/quote]The non-elect won't believe. They don't want to.

Good. And how is that not "free will?"

It is. If you understood Calvinism you would understand that. We believe in free will ... .Man can do whatever he wants to do. His will is limited only by his nature.

I mean, we really couldn't call it a "decision" if we have no choice, could we? Just like the poor "non-elect" has no decision to make but to sin, the "elect" have no decision but to believe, right?

They have other choices. they simply will not make them because of their nature. Again, this is basic Calvinism.

Know your covenants, Lar.

I do. I wrote on them. I teach them. I know them.

WE have the kingdom on earth that they are looking for. We have the heart of flesh that they are waiting to receive.

We don't have a kingdom on earth, at least not hte biblical kingdom. Christ confirmed this in Acts 1, and Acts 3. The heart of flesh in the New Covenant is for Israel. Read Jer 31 and see who it is talking about. It isn't the church.

You need a good study of Heb 8 -- the first covenant is "old and ready to wax away" (in Paul's time). Surely YOU know we are living under that "new covenant," don't you Lar?

If you study Hebrews 8, you will see that the NC promise is forgiveness that is referenced there. We share in that blessing. However, the NC passage quoted in Heb 8 is Jer 31, and there, the promise is given Israel, not the church. And we are not living in the NC now.

Does that not make "total depravity," unconditional election, irresistible grace, etal. suspect as "rapture" is to you?

Nope. The label is not important. The theological concept is. And they are found in Scripture.

not all and whosoever and world and elect and foreknow and ... you don't use scripturally!

Show me a place where i don't use these terms scripturally. I am not aware of one.

Here's something you might "chew on," Lar -- I can't remember who pointed it out to me but he said that up until about 1700, the church saw much of scripture as "allegorical." That is, a repetition of Israel with a priestly hierarchy, comparative rituals, similar covenant, etc. It never dawned on them to see the new covenant as entirely new -- new cloth for the new patch, new skin for the new wine. You really need to "get on board" with what Jesus said regarding this.

I am on board. Whoever told you that didn't know what they were talking about.

Stops all discussion when you feign to know all that God has told us but lead people around the blood of Christ to your "election gate" into the fold.

This is damnable dishonesty. Calvinism is not leading people around the blood of Christ. It is absolutely shameful for you to make such accusations. We might disagree on election and the like. But no Calvinist denies the blood of Christ. And you should never say so.

How dare you! "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..." Acts 16:31 "...believe to the saving of your souls." Heb 10:39 Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Luke 8:12 "Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." Rom 10:9 "...and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." 1Cor 1:21 "...it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

Are you now saying that God doesn't choose based on belief?

Which of those verses says that God chooses on belief? I don't see it there.

It's YOUR theology that needs the "major overhaul," Larry! Look me in the eye and say "It is not blasphemy for me [Larry] to say that God doesn't choose believers to salvation. Belief is the contrivance of the devil to make people think they are saved."

I don't even know what that means. The Bible says that God chooses people to salvation through belief. The choice is of people to be saved, and he gives them faith (Phil 1:29). The more you talk, the less convincing you are. The more you show you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[whatever]

You don't get at the issue here, whatever. The issue is why did God give Paul grace? Because He respected Paul's great education? or because Paul himself believed and repented?

I would THINK you would understand that God does not make exceptions to His salvation on account of persons. Was I wrong? If God "conditions" His salvation upon belief, it IS the person that needs to change their belief -- not God make an exception to His condition, right?

Here's a "for instance" that often comes up -- God's "elect" infants. You know -- the one's who were baptized into the faith by the Reform church. God makes an exception to belief and repentance so that they will be saved if they die. But then, of course, there must be "elect" adults who were baptized as infants. God "respects" some random (so far as we know) "elect" and condemns other random non-elect.

skypair

Oh, I got the at the issue alright. You should have read further into the verse - "each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned". It is God who assigns to each man a measure of faith, and not all equally. "Not a respecter of persons" does not mean that God treats all men exactly the same.

 

[skypair]

Yes, 2 thes 2:13, 1 Peter 1:2, John 6:63, as well as others.

Again -- the divine trinity of Calvinist proof, I guess.

Nope, just the opposite. The fact that it is totally unmerited means it has nothing to do with the person being respected.

Their PRIOR, precreation "ELECTION" is being "respected," Larry.

In your view, where the Spirit is given to those who repent and believe, God would be respecting those who repent and believe more than those who don't.

Respecting those who obey, right? I mean -- wouldn't you? They're your adoptive children now, right? Or a "prospective wife" for your Son. They're like Rachel who agreed to go with Eleazer/Holy Spirit fiancee's sight unseen!

It is clear that you don't understand what the effectual call is. That's the only explanation for these misguided statements.

That and there is no such phrase in scripture. It's a Calvinist 'device' to distinguish the all call from the elect call. But in reality, you can't point to the difference in preaching, in the word, in anything except how the same message is responded to.

I haven't discovered the 'how" or "what." I am not trying to. I do however have a "know so" salvation, which every Calvinist can have. You simply dont' understand Calvinism is you think that is true.

But you can distinguish between the words "know" and "presume," right? between sanctification and justification, right?

What??? We can answer this and have many times. You are saved by repenting and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Disallowed -- you did something! Fact is, Calvinism can only presume that God gave these to you if, indeed, you didn't do them with your own free will but were actually made to do them by God.

You are continuing to reveal that you simply do not understand Calvinism.

It could be that I don't understand YOUR Calvinism. That's why I said you are not as much of a Calvinist as I thought once.

Really? What Calvinist heard that? Please give us a source or link to a Calvinist who heard that. Otherwise, apologize for making stuff up.

Their "invitations" are to join the church, not receive Christ (Preby, Reform, Methodist - ones I've heard). Ever go to a church that asked to hear the testimony of your salvation before you could join? Baptist maybe but not Calvinist.

False belief, or belief that is not true saving faith. Also described in 2 Cor 13:5, James 2, and other passages.

Ah! So one can believe something and it not be counted for faith, eh? So 2 people sitting side by side -- one has false belief and the other true belief. Was the difference centered in the message or in the person??

Are these the poor schmucks you say are "non-elect?" They can believe but can't ever be saved? Who therefore can't have "faith" -- that which you call "equal to" belief?

The non-elect won't believe. They don't want to.

But the "elect" somehow have a "want to" that distinguishes them from the "non-elect" then, right? And the got this "want to" where?

It is. If you understood Calvinism you would understand that. We believe in free will ... .Man can do whatever he wants to do. His will is limited only by his nature.

You're an educated man, Larry. Are you really "free" if you can't choose some options? No. That's saying you believe in free will with your mouth but denying it with your theology. You're Titus 1:15ing, Lar -- "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him,..."

They have other choices. they simply will not make them because of their nature. Again, this is basic Calvinism.

Or will make them because they are "elect?" and that in spite of having the very same nature as those who reject? That's gibberish, Larry!

I do. I wrote on them [covenants]. I teach them. I know them.

Wow! And you gradiated, too! :laugh: Imagine my fascination with that contradiction! So we are not under that new covenant? So I guess we are under the old covenant then as well. Amazing!

We don't have a kingdom on earth, at least not the biblical kingdom.

Oh? You're not the least bit concerned that "unless ye be born again, ye cannot SEE the kingdom of God." I see it, you don't sorta thing. Wow! The plot thinkens! First it's no betrothed -- now it's no kingdom! :laugh:

Would you say that the true church has a King? Would you say that they obey Him? Would you say that they are indwelt with His Spirit unto obedience and sanctification? Would you say that we are "seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" right now -- "kings and priests" ourselves right now as John puts it, Rev 1:6?

I cannot fathom the depth of this ignorance of the new covenant, Larry. I KNOW that Israel won't receive it until the postrib resurrection of the just. But I also KNOW that we receive it in Christ RIGHT NOW if we believe on Him.

This is damnable dishonesty. Calvinism is not leading people around the blood of Christ. It is absolutely shameful for you to make such accusations. We might disagree on election and the like. But no Calvinist denies the blood of Christ. And you should never say so.

Let me put it to you this way -- if instead of inviting a visitor to your church to accept Christ, you invite them to join your church, are you not leading them around Christ? How could they EVER be part of the true church without coming to Christ first?

The Bible says that God chooses people to salvation through belief.

BINGO! He foreknew who would believe. He didn't choose them then make them believe -- he certainly didn't just believe He would choose them -- He chose them through or on account of their foreknown belief.

The choice is of people to be saved, and he gives them faith (Phil 1:29).

YES! Now you're 'free will!' You're finally convinced! Amen! Only didn't you mean "by people?"

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Again -- the divine trinity of Calvinist proof, I guess.

No, just three passages that clearly show your error.

Their PRIOR "ELECTION" is being "respected," Larry.

No it’s not.

Respecting those who obey, right? You are pushing the notion that He respects the 'elect' though they disobey just like the rest of us.

No, its not about respect. This is a false argument.

That and there is no such phrase in scripture. It's a Calvinist 'device' to distinguish the all call from the elect call.

Read Murray on the effectual call in Redemption: Accomplished and Applied. I am sure you have the book because no one would be as dogmatic as you are unless they were well familiar with the arguments that they have rejected, right?

But in reality, you can't point to the difference in preaching, in the word, in anything except how the same message is responded to.

There is no difference in the preaching, the word, or anything of the sort. The difference is in teh work of the Spirit. That’s exactly the point about you not understanding. You make this argument like it’s a clincher. It isn’t. It isn’t even relevant.

But you can distinguish between the words "know" and "presume," right? between sanctification and justification, right?

Not sure what this means. We can certainly distinguish between things.

Disallowed -- you did something!

Yes, but that is hardly objectionable. Read the Westminster Standards.

Fact is, Calvinism can only presume that God gave these to you.

No, we can see them at work in the life.

It could be that I don't understand YOUR Calvinism. That's why I said you are not as much of a Calvinist as I thought once.

I am way more of a Calvinist than you think. You simply do not understand.

Their "invitations" are to join the church, not receive Christ (Preby, Reform, Methodist - ones I've heard). Ever go to a church that asked to hear the testimony of your salvation before you could join? Baptist maybe but not Calvinist.

You ever seen a reformed Methodist church???? Get real. Secondly, I have been to Presbyterian churches and heard the calls to be saved. Thirdly, “Baptist but not a Calvinist” makes no sense. Baptists have historically been Calvinists. Baptist and Calvinist aren’t in opposition.

Ah! So one can believe something and it not be counted for faith, eh? So 2 people sitting side by side -- one has false belief and the other true belief. Was the difference centered in the message or in the person??

It is in the belief and the object of belief.

But the "elect" somehow have a "want to" that distinguishes them from the "non-elect" then, right?

Yes, it’s called a new nature.

What? Should we turn that Calvinists argument back on them by asking "What, were you better than me? Is that why you were saved?"

And the Calvinist would say “No, I am not better than you. In fact, I am a sinner just like you are. Totally sinful and unable to do anything to gain merit with God.”

You're an educated man, Larry. Are you really "free" if you can't choose some options?

So is God not free because he can’t choose not to be God? Is God not free because he can’t choose to sin? Of course not. That is absurd. Freedom is not found in possibility of contrarian choice. Freedom is found in accordance with nature. A man is free to do whatever he wants to do.

You're Titus 1:15ing, Lar -- "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him,..."

Nice personal attack, without any merit whatsoever. Why do you stoop to this level? It is obvious that you can’t answer the issues. But the best thing would be simply to withdraw from the conversation rather than making personal attacks.

Or will make them because they are "elect?" and that in spite of having the very same nature as those who reject? That's gibberish, Larry!

They don’t have the “very same nature.” That’s the point. God gives them a new nature. You simply are uninformed, or misinformed.

So we are not under that new covenant? So I guess we are under the ole then as well. Amazing!

Did you read the passage? Look at who the old and new covenants are with. They are with the nation of Israel.

Here is it: Jeremiah 31:31-32 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

See, the NC is with Israel and Judah, the ones who fathers came out of Egypt, the ones who broke the OC. That is not the church. It is not you.

Oh? You're not the least bit concerned that "unless ye be born again, ye cannot SEE the kingdom of God." Wow!

I am greatly concerned about that. Why would you think I am not?

Would you say that the true church has a King?

Not in the sense talked about in the OT.

Would you say that they obey Him?

Yes.

Would you say that they are indwelt with His Spirit unto obedience and sanctification?

Yes.

Would you say that we are "seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" right now -- "kings and priests" ourselves right now as John puts it, Rev 1:6?

No.

I cannot fathom the depth of this ignorance of the new covenant, Larry.

You have simply not studied the issue. This is not ignorance. If you want to talk about the NC, I am more than willing to do that. Start a thread, and exegete, verse by verse, the NC passage in Jeremiah.

I KNOW that Israel won't receive it until the postrib resurrection of the just. But I also KNOW that we receive it in Christ RIGHT NOW if we believe on Him.

The Bible doesn’t teach this though, and that is the problem.

Let me put it to you this way -- if instead of inviting a visitor to your church to accept Christ, you invite them to join your church, are you not leading them around Christ? How could the EVER be part of the true church without coming to Christ first?

You would have to ask someone who does that. I have never met an evangelical who does. And I doubt you have either.

BINGO! He foreknew who would believe.

He did. But foreknowledge is not simply knowing ahead of tie.

He didn't choose them then make them believe -- he certainly didn't just believe He would choose them -- He chose them through or on account of their foreknown belief.

This is nowhere found in Scripture, as you well know since you have never been able to show it.

YES! Now you're 'free will!' You're finally convinced! Amen!

I have been convinced for more than 15 years since I took the word of God seriously.

Your little one liners are useless. You are distracting issues by bringing in the NC. You are ignoring the issues while making false accusations. You are showing a great ignorance of what Calvinism is. And you are being smart aleck. None of that is good for a civil conversation.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Wake Up Folks Words don't mean what they say according to Brother Larry.

You mean Red might be blue and stuff like that - You got it according to the First Addition of Larry's Unabridged Dictionary

I put it in a soft color so it would not come across harsh. ​

Fore - Know -- To know in advance Now Obsolete According to Larry.


Find me a dictionary that is not written by a Calvinist that changes the meaning of Foreknowledge to accommodate Larry.

Changing the meaning of words for Calvinist is as bad as seeing double meaning is passages to spiritualize them.


When just accepting the truth does not work just re-define the meaning so it meets your view and there you have it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Wake Up Folks Words don't mean what they say according to Brother Larry.

Actually, my contention is just the opposite ... that the words do mean what they say. My problem is with people who change them.

Fore - Know -- To know in advance Now Obsolete According to Larry.

The word is proginosko. According to BAGD (which I am sure you are familiar with since you know the definitions of Bible words), the word mean "Choose beforehand." You can look it up. It is page 703 in the third edition. If you prefer NIDNTT, is volume 1, p. 693. If you prefer the TDNT, it is volume 1, p. 715. If you prefer the EDNT, volume 3, p. 153. All of these lexical sources will show you what the word means. Since you are such an expert on this, I am sure you have these books in your library, at least one of them. After all, no one would pretend to be an expert without actually doing the work and having the resources to do it, would they?

It is the same word used in Rom 11:2 of God's election of Israel. There, it clearly means choice. Because God "foreknew" (in your definition) all the nations, yet Israel is the one that is "foreknown." Your definition makes no sense in Rom 11:2.

In 1 Peter 1:20 it is used of Christ and his incarnation. Clearly, that is not merely looking down through time and seeing that Christ would come. It is a statement of intention, as it is in Acts 2:23.

So these are not my definitions, nor have I changed the meaning of the word. It is you who have changed it from what it meant when Paul wrote it.

Find me a dictionary that is not written by a Calvinist that changes the meaning of Foreknowledge to accommodate Larry.

BAGD is hardly a Calvinist source. It is a standard lexical dictionary.

Changing the meaning of words for Calvinist

Show us a word we have changed the meaning of. So far, all you have shown is that you are not familiar with the words used. You haven't shown any change. That's pretty typical of your approach. You make accusations, but never manage to actually prove them.

When just accepting the truth does not work just re-define the meaning so it meets your view and there you have it.

This is my biggest problem with your position. Becaues "proginosko" as used in Rom 8:29 doesn't fit your theology, you change the meaning of it. You make it say something it doesn't say, and indeed something that is absurd.

Think about it: In Rom 8:29 those who are foreknown are called, justified, and then glorified. In the passage there are none who are foreknown who are not eventually glorified.

Now, if God is omniscient, and we use your definition, he "foreknows" not only believers, but also those who will not believe. So the foreknown of rom 8:29 must, of necessity, include believers and unbelievers, and the problem is that those unbelievers whom he foreknows are also called, justified, and glorified. And that is senseless. And you don't believe that. But you have no way to escape it with your definition.

You see your problem is that you have defined an English word when God inspired a Greek word. More homework is in order for you.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Kata = According to / When used with the accusative case and Prognoosin is in the accusstive case.

Prognoosin is a compound word form the following two words:

Pro = Before

Gnoosin = Knowledge

gnoosis
gnooseoos
gnoosei
gnoosin It is this one Larry - accusitive case
gnoosti

My commentary: It is 100 percent accurate base on the meaning of the words and the case they are used with in I Peter 1:2.

Any view to change the meaning of the word as used in this verse are false bar none Larry - You know it and so do I.

Just the facts

KJV according to the foreknowledge
NKJV elect according to the foreknowledge
ASV according to the foreknowledge
NASV according to the foreknowledge
YGB according to a foreknowledge
DRB elect according to the foreknowledge
WEY chosen in accordance with the foreknowledge of God
WEB Elect according to the foreknowledge
ISV chosen according to the foreknowledge
WNT chosen in accordance with the foreknowledge
MNT according to the foreknowledge
NIV according to foreknowledge
LIT by Strong - according to foreknowledge
GLS - Me - according to foreknowledge (in the Greek - kata pro-gnoosin"

It sees to me that these intelligent masters of the Language who have translated all the different versions disagree with you Larry.

Just who should I believe? What the Bible says or Larry?

That is easy - The Bible

Larry I can like you but I can’t believe in you. Or in other words you can not be the object of my faith because you have not earned it.

I love you my friend but the facts just simply disagree with you.

The grammar of I Peter 1:2 stand as read “according to foreknowledge

:saint: Gordon - I am hearing confessions shortly after dinner :godisgood:

Oh, The Bible does say confess your faults one to another -

Janes 5:16. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.

Next

Hi, sister Sue. By the way have you seen Larry?

OK - Lighen Up we are haveing fun here - Poke all you like at me I can take it big time so lit it rip.

Can I have a hand clap of praise. :applause: There that's better.

I hope no one is out there :BangHead: against the wall.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Kata = According to / When used with the accusative case and Prognoosin is in the accusstive case.

Prognoosin is a compound word form the following two words:

Pro = Before

Gnoosin = Knowledge

gnoosis
gnooseoos
gnoosei
gnoosin It is this one Larry - accusitive case
gnoosti

Actually, it is the accusative case. Do you know what that means?

Any view to change the meaning of the word as used in this verse are false bar none Larry - You know it and so do I.

Exactly my point. You can’t change the meaning of the word.

KJV according to the foreknowledge
NKJV elect according to the foreknowledge
ASV according to the foreknowledge
NASV according to the foreknowledge
YGB according to a foreknowledge
DRB elect according to the foreknowledge
WEY chosen in accordance with the foreknowledge of God
WEB Elect according to the foreknowledge
ISV chosen according to the foreknowledge
WNT chosen in accordance with the foreknowledge
MNT according to the foreknowledge
NIV according to foreknowledge
LIT by Strong - according to foreknowledge
GLS - Me - according to foreknowledge (in the Greek - kata pro-gnoosin"

It sees to me that these intelligent masters of the Language who have translated all the different versions disagree with you Larry.

And who here disagrees with me? It appears that they all agree with me.

Larry I can like you but I can’t believe in you. Or in other words you can not be the object of my faith because you have not earned it.

I don’t want you to believe in me. That is why I cited four different lexical authorities, recognized universally as trustworthy, to define the word in question. You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the people who have spent their lives studying Greek.

Did you read any of these sources I gave you?

I love you my friend but the facts just simply disagree with you.

Which fact disagrees with me? You have yet to show one.

The grammar of I Peter 1:2 stand as read “according to foreknowledge

Yes it does. Have I ever disputed that?

This makes me think you are not paying any attention here at all. First, I made most of my comments about Romans 8:29, an argument you conveniently ignored.

Second, the dispute has nothing to with the translation of kata prognosin. It translates “according to the foreknowledge.” The issue is over what does “foreknowledge” mean. In reference to that, I cited four well-known and highly respected lexical sources, all of which agree with me, none of which agree with you. Doesn’t that indicate something? It should.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Actually, it is the accusative case. Do you know what that means?

Exactly my point. You can’t change the meaning of the word.

And who here disagrees with me? It appears that they all agree with me.

I don’t want you to believe in me. That is why I cited four different lexical authorities, recognized universally as trustworthy, to define the word in question. You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the people who have spent their lives studying Greek.

Did you read any of these sources I gave you?

Which fact disagrees with me? You have yet to show one.

Yes it does. Have I ever disputed that?

This makes me think you are not paying any attention here at all. First, I made most of my comments about Romans 8:29, an argument you conveniently ignored.

Second, the dispute has nothing to with the translation of kata prognosin. It translates “according to the foreknowledge.” The issue is over what does “foreknowledge” mean. In reference to that, I cited four well-known and highly respected lexical sources, all of which agree with me, none of which agree with you. Doesn’t that indicate something? It should.

It means what it says Knowledge before hand. That is what it means.

 

[russell55]

It means what it says Knowledge before hand. That is what it means.

What lexicon did you look at to find out what it means? That's how you find the meaning of NT Greek words.

 

[skypair]

Read Murray on the effectual call in Redemption: Accomplished and Applied. I am sure you have the book because no one would be as dogmatic as you are unless they were well familiar with the arguments that they have rejected, right?

No, I don't have his book. The objectionable theory is as plain as the nose on my face.

There is no difference in the preaching, the word, or anything of the sort. The difference is in the work of the Spirit. That’s exactly the point about you not understanding. You make this argument like it’s a clincher. It isn’t. It isn’t even relevant.

So we're back to some form of regeneration before hearing again.

Yes, but that is hardly objectionable. Read the Westminster Standards.

"Works" of belief and repentance are certainly objectionable to many other Calvinists here if they result in salvation.

No, we can see them [the proofs of salvation] at work in the life.

Good, what are they?

You ever seen a reformed Methodist church????

Pastor, yes. You know -- the ones who say the elements of communion are changed to blood and flesh. Who invite people to a closer walk (sanctification) but neglect to offer them salvation. Yeah -- you?

Secondly, I have been to Presbyterian churches and heard the calls to be saved.

Thankfully, I have recently, too. It's NOT the norm, though, Larry.

Yes, it’s called a new nature.

I KNEW it! Regenerated before hearing, before believing, before salvation! Here we go again!

So is God not free because he can’t choose not to be God?

limiting oneself from freedoms one has is NOT lack of freedom -- it is self-discipline.

A man is free to do whatever he wants to do.

Precisely! Thank you! Man can choose good and evil as I've said all along. All he has to do is "will" to do it -- that is, be convicted of the necessity by, say, the Holy Spirit.

They don’t have the “very same nature.” That’s the point. God gives them a new nature. You simply are uninformed, or misinformed.

No, you backed off this at one point saying that faith and regeneration were simultaneous. YEAH! Then I said after hearing and believing, God gives faith and regeneration. Now you're back to denying hearing and believing as prededent for faith and regeneration. Q: Is faith now before hearing since it is simultaneous again with regeneration?

Here is it: Jeremiah 31:31-32 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

And God didn't make the covenant with the disciples and the Christian Jews in Jerusalem and on down through the 'branches" that weren't "whacked off?" The "day coming" wasn't Pentecost?

And I would make this comment as well -- just because you see it promised to Israel in Jeremiah does NOT mean it doesn't appear in NT scripture for the church. But I'll research what I think is a appalling oversight on your part.

[/quote]He did. But foreknowledge is not simply knowing ahead of time.[/quote] ...according to Calvin's technical jargon, you mean. Like those other words (all, world, whosoever, etc. that can't find natural meaning in Calvinism) Always try to remember when you use terms Calvinistically to add that caveate, Lar. Some will take exception if they find our you are using another language to communicate with them.

skypair

 

[GordonSlocum]

What lexicon did you look at to find out what it means? That's how you find the meaning of NT Greek words.

Is this what you are looking for?


The verb “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 is indicative aorist active third person singular. It is a compound word and is made up of the preposition “pro” meaning before and egnoo which is from ginooskoo the present indicative active meaning to know.

The declension of this verb is as follows in the aroist active

First Person Singular Aorist Active is egoono
Second Person Singular Aorist Active is egnoos
Third Person Singular Aorist Active is egnoo - this is the spelling in the text Romans 8:29 compounded with its prefex pro.
First Person Plural Aorist Active is egnoomen
Second Person Plural Aorist Active is egnoote
Third Person Plural Aorist Active is egnoosan


Now you know. No thrill, No spill, Just the simple truth. Taking words for what they are and what they mean. "pro - before" "gnoo from ginooskoo" to know

God knew before in the past - that is what it means. Pure Simple Truth.

What does it mean for this word to be Third Person Singular Aorist Active in the Romans 8:29 verse that is translated correctly “Foreknew” ?

What does Aorist Active mean: It means the occurrence of an action in the past?

I am not screaming all I am doing is making it big enough so that you don't miss it. Calvinist are constantly trying to make foreknow refer to relationship but if we are intellectually honest with the grammar and the meaning of the words that is absolutely impossible in the Romans 8:29 passage.

So what does that mean? The “foreknowing” took place in the past. Reference to time is for our benefit. God dwells in the eternal present. Space and time is our reference so we deal with things from a time space continuum, thus we have this word telling us that God foreknew an action in the past. What action was it that He foreknew. Your salvation.

 

[Tom Butler]

Basically, you are trying to be "politically correct." There was nothing wrong with your testimony or what you DID when you believed on Christ. You're just trying to "backfill" what you experienced with Calvinist rhetoric is all.

Actually, what I'm doing is trying to make my testimony consistent with what I believe the scripture teaches.