Difference between being redemptively "in Christ" versus Representatively in Christ?

[Rippon]

God does not do His drawing by the force of Determinism while the man kicks and screams and claws at the dirt as the Calvinist position would have us believe.

Yep, you certainly do engage in a lot of absurd strawmen in your protestations against biblical theology Ben.

Name any Calvinists who believe the nonsense you have claimed we adhere to. Can't think of any? Then stop your lying. It's not conducive to anything productive.

 

[Benjamin]

Yep, you certainly do engage in a lot of absurd strawmen in your protestations against biblical theology Ben.

Name any Calvinists who believe the nonsense you have claimed we adhere to. Can't think of any? Then stop your lying. It's not conducive to anything productive.

Show me one point of the TULIP that is not reliant on Determism, otherwise I'll start with with the name of Rippon.:sleep:

 

[RAdam]

Psalm 110:3 says: "Thy people shall be made willing in the day of thy power." People aren't drug kicking and screaming to Christ. They are made willing by the power of God. When God writes His law in the heart of a sinner, that sinner is glad to see Jesus Christ.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Friend, you can't even understand what you are reading! Your conclusion is exactly the point I was making. There are things God "will" not do because of the limitations of His nature - that is my point. Likewise, it is the same with man. free choice is limited by his nature.


No, God can not do anything such as not be Truth or go against His own aseity. Scripture clearly states that God can not lie and that God is Truth; that is His nature. My friend, TRUTH, the very nature of God prevents Him from sinning, as GOODNESS, prevents Him from being evil. God can not choose to be evil or sin because there is no evil in Him and God does not change!



Are you incapable of reading English? Philippians 2:13 clearly and explicitly states that God is the cause in all saints for whatever they will or do that glorifies Him. Philippians 2:13 does not use the word "purpose" or makes general statements but specifically uses the word "to will." He is the cause behind the consequence of their willing to do whatever they do for the glory of God. If this is not a clear and definitive statement in regard to cause and effect relationship between God's will and the human will then the English language is pointless.

You present (Philip 2:13) as a proof text for Determinism yet avoid the issue that the influence is God’s goodness. The good pleasure of God is that we respond to His goodness; I also addressed “purpose”. It is his good work and pleasure to influence but you attempt to change His work into a determination on preselected elect.

I have NEVER denied that God's character and nature is wholly good without any taint of evil. I have NEVER attributed evil to God except as the indirect author of it through creation of free will. God did create free will didn't He? Free will is the modus operandi that men and Satan brought evil into the world isn't it? God does over rule evil for good does He not? You need to get a pair of glasses.


You attempt to project man as both totally deprived: meaning unable to respond in faith unless that very faith is predeterminately given him and at the same time say He gave man free choice. There is no strawman; Determinism and Volition are logically mutually exclusive and that is not misrepresenting the position you are trying to hold that both are possible.


No! I simply prove that like God, fallen man is subject to his own nature. God can will to do anything he pleases and so can man. Fallen man can will to do good as much as God can will to do evil. Since God cannot will to do evil becuase of his righteous nature, man cannot will to do good because of his unrighteous nature. It is not me that says this but God's word in clear readable English (Rom. 3:10-11; Rom. 8:7).

While you engage in the above fallacy you soft brush in God’s responsibility for evil saying, “However, there is the sovereign will of God that no man can flaunt. All evil and sin is by God's permission…” You then give (Psa 76:10) for a proof text but the context is that the wrath of God’s enemies shall cause others (His people) to praise Him; this shows the cause of evil is man and God using it for the good, IT DOES NOT SHOW GOD AS THE CAUSE OF ANYTHING BUT GOOD. .

Again, you simply can't read, or can't understand what you read! My point in giving Psalm 76:10 was to prove that God can only do GOOD and that He is not the author of sin but Sovereignly denies the existence of all sin that will not eventually work for His glory and our good. Romans 8:28 says "all things" and it means "all things" and Psalm 76:10 proves that "all things" means all sin in this world as well. SIN DOES NOT ORIGINATE WITH GOD BUT GOD DOES NOT PERMIT OR ALLOW SIN THAT WILL NOT GLORIFY HIM.


Deut 32:4 says that God is without moral evil, but you say God has this attribute as a part of His will. Again, I did not misrepresent your position, so no strawman.

I am afraid your mind is so perverted by nonsense you can't even understand the simple things of God's word. I am not accusing God of being evil but I am asserting God rules over all things including evil. Evil exists by His permission not by His desire.

I reject the Calvinist implications that would suggest total depravity to be mean walking corpse unable apart from predetermination of election to respond to Gods influences through His grace which is offered to all (1John 2:2). Simply you are trying to have it both ways while avoiding logic and it appears to me in some senses you are calling yourself a Calvinist but in reality are an acting Arminian while trying to hold on to volition.

First, I have never called myself a Calvinist and never will. Second, your final authority is human logic rather than God's Word. Romans 8:7 clearly and explicitly states that the fallen natue is completely incapable of a proper response toward God. Man is a PHYSICAL living SPIRITUAL corpse (Deut. 29:4; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:18-19; etc., etc.).

In the context of Romans 8:7 Paul is speaking of being born from above in the spirit. Human beings are sinful and without God, incapable on their own of being righteous, they must be born again to be saved. There is no argument from me that without the aid of God man is unable to respond. Mt position is that God works through influences on the children of disobedience (Eph 2:1-2) Left to ourselves we would not choose to be with God. Judgment is rendered on our responsibility to respond to God influences; IF the influences are not sincerely given to all then not all can be held responsible.

Where in the Bible does it ever say once that depraved lost men are brought to God through "influences"???? The Bible clearly says that lost people have NO HEART for God and the things of God (Deut. 29:4; Eph. 4:18) and salvation is God giving them a NEW heart (Deut. 29:4; Ezek. 36:26-27; 2 Cor. 3:3-6).

I would still like you to share your salvation experience! Do you have a salvation experience?

 

[Rippon]

God does not do His drawing by the force of Determinism while the man kicks and screams and claws at the dirt as the Calvinist position would have us believe.

The above lie of yours is so galling. The only one who came close to saying it was the arch-Arminian -- C.S.Lewis. He said he came kicking and screaming into Christianity. That doesn't exactly bolster your case Ben. Do have a new-found honesty to retract your king-size fib? Or will you just go on your merry prevaricating way?

 

[Winman]

Show me one point of the TULIP that is not reliant on Determism, otherwise I'll start with with the name of Rippon.:sleep:

You are not going to get anywhere with these folks.

I have NEVER denied that God's character and nature is wholly good without any taint of evil. I have NEVER attributed evil to God except as the indirect author of it through creation of free will. God did create free will didn't He? Free will is the modus operandi that men and Satan brought evil into the world isn't it? God does over rule evil for good does He not? You need to get a pair of glasses.

Calvinism forces its adherents to believe illogical impossibilities. They will insist they believe unregenerate man has a free will, but can only choose against God and never for God.

I mean, they will actually say a man is utterly enslaved to his nature, and in the very next breath say the man has a free will.

How are you going to reason with someone who believes in an illogical impossibility?

 

[Dr. Walter]

God does not do His drawing by the force of Determinism while the man kicks and screams and claws at the dirt as the Calvinist position would have us believe. We freely respond in our faith, our intellect, our desire, our heart to give reciprocation of the great love He freely offers us in grace and truth. - originally said by Ben

The statement above shows a fundemental igorance of not only what he calls "Calvinism" but fundemental ignorance of the Scriptures.

Only a man left in his unregenerated state with a depraved will kicks and screams at the things of God (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Salvation is God giving them a NEW WANT TO (desire). He gives them a NEW HEART (Ezek. 36:26-27).

In regard to their own free will and responsibility to do right God says:

O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! - Deut. 5:29

In regard to SPIRITUAL ABILITY to perceive, see or hear Moses says of the very same people:

Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

In regard to the act of God giving such a heart to the same people, God says in regard to cause and effect:

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Ezekiel 36:26 is quoted by Paul in 2 Cor. 3:3 as the New Testament Covenant of redemption. It is quoted by the writer of Hebrews in both chapters 8 and 10 as the "new" covenant salvation.

However, notice the words "CAUSE YOU" in Ezek. 36:27. Why must God give anyone a NEW heart and "put my Spirit within you"??? The answer is that the unregenerated heart is at "enmity with God and is not subject to the law of God" (Rom. 8:7) whereas the new heart is the "CAUSE" for "enmity" being replaced by submission and obedience to "my statues."

The last phrase "cause you...shall keep my judgemetns, and do them" is parallel to Philippians 2:13 "For it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure."

Who does Jesus give eternal life to? Whosoever is WILLING to believe the gospel is the answer from the CONSEQUENCE side. However, who is WILLING? Only "as many as THOU hast given me" is what Jesus said (Jn. 17:2) and that is the Divine side of CAUSE.

Who is it that will come to Christ in faith? "ALL that the Father giveth to me shall come" (Jn. 6:37). The Father giving such is the CAUSE for those coming to Christ. Why do "ALL" those given to Christ by the Father come? Because "no man can come except the Father draw HIM and I will raise HIM up at the last day." How many of "ALL" that the Father draws/teaches/instructs come to the Son? "EVERYONE" that has heard and been taught by the Father comes (Jn. 6:44-45).

Why is it that even those who profess faith in Christ and call themselves His disciples end up turning from Christ and walking no more with him? Because saving faith must be "given unto them by my Father" (Jn. 6:64-65).


They regard such a doctrine where God sets his love upon some and not upon others in regard to redemptive love as making God unrighteous/unjust:


As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. - Rom. 9:13-14


They regard such a doctrine where the human will is not the decisive cause in salvation but the elective will of God is the cause in savlation of some and rejection of others as unfair, unjust and which makes God responsible for sin:



Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? - Rom. 9:18-19

Ultimately they reject God's Sovereignty to do what He pleases with God hating, resistant sinners:

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

They reject that these scriptures say what they say! They try to reinterpret them to apply to nations, to Israel but verse 24 tells you explicitly who they apply to "EVEN US, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"


What do the lost religious men and saved but unenlightened men of this world do with these clear and explicit but abrasive Biblical truths?

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. - 2 Pet. 3:15-16

 

[Dr. Walter]

My friend, do you have a problem with reading English? You told me that God is not capable of willing to do evil because his nature is righteous. Should I draw from that admission that God does not have a free will simply because His will is in bondage to His nature????? Or should I draw the conclusion that His will is free within the confines of His righteous nature and that is why he cannot sin, lie, or do evil? What is hard about drawing this conclusion concerning God????

Now, simply apply the same logic you admit about God Who has a righteous nature to any being who has a unrighteous nature! The unregenerate unrighteous nature of man (Rom. 3:10-11) cannot will to love and submit to God's righteousness (Rom. 8:7). Does that deny that man has a free will? No more than the same exact problem in God denies that God has a free will. Man's free will is confined to his unrighteous nature just as God's free will is confined to His righteous nature. Man cannot will to do good any more than God can will to do evil. Why? Not because either lack free will but that freedom is confined to their respective natures. So why is it illogical to say that God has a free will but can only choose righteousness and never unrighteousness because of His nature? So why is illogical to say that man has a free will but can only choose unrighteousness and never righteousness because of his nature. If you deny one you must deny the other. Are you willing to admit that God's free will is capable of willing contrary to His righteous nature and therefore can freely choose to sin, lie, sin and do evil? If not, then why not? Because of his nature!

Now you claim you are logical and that logic is essential. So use it instead of abusing it.


Calvinism forces its adherents to believe illogical impossibilities. They will insist they believe unregenerate man has a free will, but can only choose against God and never for God.

I mean, they will actually say a man is utterly enslaved to his nature, and in the very next breath say the man has a free will.

How are you going to reason with someone who believes in an illogical impossibility?[/QUOTE]

 

[Winman]

The statement above shows a fundemental igorance of not only what he calls "Calvinism" but fundemental ignorance of the Scriptures.

Really? So I don't understand Calvinism, and that it necessarily teaches that God is the author of all sin? Well, here are some statements from Calvinists.

This from Dr. Samuel Hopkins, a Calvinist;

"God does superintend and direct with regard to every instance of sin. He orders how much sin there shall be, and effectually restrains and prevents all that which he would not have take place. Men are, with respect to this, absolutely under his direction and control."

And...

"Something must have taken place previous to his sin, and in which the sinner had no hand with which his sin was so connected as to render it certain that sin would take place just as it does;"

And...

"Moral evil could not exist unless it were the will of God, and his choice that it should exist rather than not. And from this it is certain that it is wisest and best in his view that sin should exist. And in thus willing what was wisest and best, and foreordaining that it should come to pass, God exercised his wisdom and goodness; and in this view and sense is really the origin and cause of moral evil, as really as he is of the existence of anything that he wills, however inconceivable the mode and manner of the origin and existence of this event may be, and however different from that of any other."

This from Dr. Nathanael Emmons a Calvinist;

(God)"determined, therefore, to operate on his heart itself and cause him to put forth certain evil exercises in the view of certain external motives";

And...

"If saints can work out their salvation, under a positive influence of the Deity, then sinners can work out their own destruction under his positive influence."

And...

"His (Adam) first sin was a free, voluntary exercise, produced by a divine operation in the view of motives."

So you can read about these two Calvinists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Hopkins_(1721-1803)

Couldn't find Wiki on Emmons, but this article shows he was a Calvinist.

Emmons was known for his fervent opposition to Unitarianism, Universalism, and almost any doctrine but evangelical Calvinism. He preached against Thomas Jefferson. The educator Horace Mann, a childhood congregant of Emmons, recalled that he
expounded all the doctrines of total depravity, election, and reprobation, and not only the eternity but the extremity of hell’s torments, unflinchingly and in their most terrible significance, while he rarely if ever descanted on the joys of heaven, and never, in my recollection upon the essential and necessary happiness of a virtuous life.

I can actually quote you many more Calvinists who say that God is the author of sin if you like.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Usually, when a person wants to be fair minded they will quote standard authorities that represent a position rather than searching for obscure persons that few have ever heard about.

You are obviously not interested in the truth but in arguing and building straw men to further your arguments. Notice that 95% of your arguments are void of scriptures whereas those you oppose make their arguments primarily with scriptures. This is telling on you and your position.

God is not the author of Sin and most evangelical Calvinist do not charge God to be the author of sin. The doctrines of grace do not demand that God is the author of Sin. However, God is God and sin that originates with "free will" in created beings is not sovereign over God. Although God is not the author of sin He is not controlled by sin nor are His purposes overruled by sin.

If you cannot comprehend that God overrules sin and even restrains sin that would overrule His eternal purposes then you do not serve the God of the Bible because the God of the Bible restrains all evil that will not work for His ultimately glory (Psa. 76:10) as He works "all things" after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:28). A God who cannot restrain sin or overule sin is not God and certainly not the God of the Bible:

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Really? So I don't understand Calvinism, and that it necessarily teaches that God is the author of all sin? Well, here are some statements from Calvinists.

This from Dr. Samuel Hopkins, a Calvinist;



This from Dr. Nathanael Emmons a Calvinist;



So you can read about these two Calvinists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Hopkins_(1721–1803)

Couldn't find Wiki on Emmons, but this article shows he was a Calvinist.



I can actually quote you many more Calvinists who say that God is the author of sin if you like.

 

[Winman]

You are obviously not interested in the truth but in arguing and building straw men to further your arguments. Notice that 95% of your arguments are void of scriptures whereas those you oppose make their arguments primarily with scriptures. This is telling on you and your position.

Even your fellow Calvinists here will tell you this is a ridiculous statement. I have listed probably hundreds of scriptures over the last few months that contradict Calvinism. They may not agree with my interpretation of scripture, but anybody who says I don't post scripture often does not know what they are talking about.

Do you consider John Piper obscure? He wrote this;

This use of kûn (which can be rendered by καταρτίζω) in a context so much like Paul's (cf also 1 QS 11:10,11) increases the probability that with κατηρτισμένα Paul has in view the divine agency.

To the Qumran analogies may also be added at least one example of a rabbinic conception of predestination which, though late (about 340), may reflect early tradition. According to Midrash Ester 1,1 (829) a rabbi said,

From the beginning of the creation of the world God prepared what he chose: Adam (he prepared) to be the first creature, Cain to be the first murderer, Abel to be the first one murdered, Noah to be the first one saved, etc. [cf Strack-Billerbeck, 1, 982].

I conclude, therefore, primarily from the context of Romans 9 (but also with some corroboration from Paul's Jewish milieu; cf also Apocalypse of Abraham 22) that it accords best with Paul's intention to see the divine agency behind the passive κατηρτισμένα in Romans 9:22.

So, Piper here agrees with this Rabbi who said God determined that Cain would be the first murderer.

If you want to see more quotes from Calvinists saying God is the author of sin, I have plenty more I can show.

 

[Dr. Walter]

My friend,

I noticed that you rarely respond to the Biblical evidence placed before you. You are more concerned with what uninspired men say than inspired men.
I can name just as many "Calvinists" who deny that God is the author of sin as you can name who attribute sin to God. However, in the final analysis what does it matter what any man may or may not say?? I could name Armininians that are consistent Arminians and deny eternal security or salvation by grace without works and most of them do. However, I know many who believe in eternal security. So what point is there in pitting Arminians against Arminians or Calvinists against Calvinists???

I have placed many scriptures before you that you simply ignore because of your zeal for unspired men and their writings or your zeal for human logic.

For example, I have pointed out that Jesus said in John 6:44 that the same "him" that is drawn by the Father is the same "him" grammatically that is raised by the Son to everlasting life. I have pointed out that the "all" in 6:45 is the "EVERYONE" in John 6:45 that comes to the son. This is explanatory of why "ALL" that the father gives the son in John 6:37-39 come to the son and NOTHING IS LOST.

These contextual and Biblical undeniable facts completely destroy your whole logical and philosophical position. You must deny them in order for your theory to survive. NONE that are given fail to come and NONE that come fail to be saved. Giving is the cause for coming (vv. 37-40). NONE can come except the Father draw "HIM" and Jesus promises to raise "HIM" that is the one drawn by the Father so NONE are lost (v. 44). ALL the Father teaches are "EVERYONE that is taught and NONE fail to come (v. 45).

In regard to those "given" by the Father Jesus later says that out of "all flesh" only "as many as" God given to the Son are given eternal life (Jn. 17:2). Being GIVEN is the condition for being given eternal life if you take His words as inspired.

My point is, your arguments are primarily composed of logic and pitting what men say against me without much use of scripture. In direct contrast, those you oppose use primarily scripture alone but yet you primarily ignore the scriptures and rely upon uninspired human logic primarily originating out of misrepresentation of those you oppose.

I would still like to hear your personal salvation experience.

 

[Winman]

For example, I have pointed out that Jesus said in John 6:44 that the same "him" that is drawn by the Father is the same "him" grammatically that is raised by the Son to everlasting life. I have pointed out that the "all" in 6:45 is the "EVERYONE" in John 6:45 that comes to the son. This is explanatory of why "ALL" that the father gives the son in John 6:37-39 come to the son and NOTHING IS LOST.

I responded to this.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

You are making two mistakes here. First, in verse 44 Jesus is speaking only of those who come to him. And it is absolutely true that they cannot come unless they are drawn.

But that is not the same thing as saying all who are drawn will come. Jesus in John 12:32 said he would draw all men. Well, it is obvious not all men come to Jesus and get saved, so it is obvious not all who are drawn come. You assume Irresistable Grace, but the scriptures clearly show a man can resist Gods drawing. I showed Hosea chapter 11 where God says he drew men with love.

Hos 11:4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.

Notice that God describes how he drew the Jews, as one who takes a yoke off of them, and fed them with meat. So he was good to them, showed them mercies and benefits to draw them, he did not forcibly compel them.

But then Hosea shows these men resisting and pulling away, backsliding.

Hos 11:7 And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him.

Notice it mentions again that God was calling them as it showed in Hosea 11:1. Thus being called and being drawn are one and the same as I showed before.

Then I even provided commentary from Matthew Henry a Calvinist confirming that these Jews who were drawn were resisting God and pulling away. I did that because I knew you would not take my word for it.

Your second mistake is separating verse 45 from 44. Verse 45 explains how God draws men. He draws them by teaching them through the scriptures. And when it says "hath heard" and "hath learned" it speaks of a voluntary hearing and learning, not compulsory.

Here is what Barnes Notes say on the word "draw" in verse 44;

Draw him. This word is used here, evidently, to denote such an influence from God as to secure the result, or as to incline the mind to believe; yet the manner in which this is done is not determined by the use of the word. It is used in the New Testament six times. Once it is applied to a compulsory drawing of Paul and Silas to the market-place, Acts 16:19. Twice it is used to denote the drawing of a net, John 21:6,11. Once to the drawing of a sword (John 18:10); and once in a sense similar to its use here (John 12:32): "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." What is its meaning here must be determined by the facts about the sinner's conversion. See Barnes "John 6:40". In the conversion of the sinner God enlightens the mind (John 6:45), he inclines the will (Psalms 110:3), and he influences the soul by motives, by just views of his law, by his love, his commands, and his threatenings; by a desire of happiness, and a consciousness of danger; by the Holy Spirit applying truth to the mind, and urging him to yield himself to the Saviour. So that, while God inclines him, and will have all the glory, man yields without compulsion; the obstacles are removed, and he becomes a willing servant of God.

You will disagree, but I do not believe God compels a man to come to him by force, he allures or entices a man through lovingkindness.

Jer 31:3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No, I do not consider any quotation that you must INFER that a person believes that God is the author of sin to be credible unless they explicitly say they believe God to be the author of sin. You have produced no such quotation yet. However, even if you do produce such a statement that does not mean that this person represents all Calvinists.

Many of these men are simply trying to explain that sin is not out of God's control or to say it another way, Sin is not the Sovereign of the Universe. How they explain God's sovereignty over sin may be inappropriately be perverted by their adversaries to infer they believe that God is the author of Sin when in fact they do not believe such.

However, Again, I would like to hear your own salvation experience.

Even your fellow Calvinists here will tell you this is a ridiculous statement. I have listed probably hundreds of scriptures over the last few months that contradict Calvinism. They may not agree with my interpretation of scripture, but anybody who says I don't post scripture often does not know what they are talking about.

Do you consider John Piper obscure? He wrote this;



So, Piper here agrees with this Rabbi who said God determined that Cain would be the first murderer.

If you want to see more quotes from Calvinists saying God is the author of sin, I have plenty more I can show.

 

[Winman]

No, I do not consider any quotation that you must INFER that a person believes that God is the author of sin to be credible unless they explicitly say they believe God to be the author of sin. You have produced no such quotation yet. However, even if you do produce such a statement that does not mean that this person represents all Calvinists

Now you are playing word games like a teenager. I once told my son when he was a teenager to wash the dishes. I came back about a half hour later and he had washed all the dishes, but left everything else unwashed. He said, "You said wash the dishes, so that's what I did.". He thought he was being real cute. Well, I made him wash all the dishes, pots, pans, spoons, forks, knifes, saucers....

When he finished he came and got me. And guess what? I told him to wash them all over again. In fact, I filled up the sink with hot soapy water and put all the dishes back in the soapy water. And then I told him he had to wash the dishes for the next two weeks (he had 5 sisters), and he should think twice about playing word games with Dad.

And that is what you and others are doing, playing word games like a teenager who will not admit when he is wrong.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I responded to this.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

You are making two mistakes here. First, in verse 44 Jesus is speaking only of those who come to him. And it is absolutely true that they cannot come unless they are drawn.


You cannot honestly interpret John 6:44-45 and the word "draw" by going to Old Testament passages where neither that word or the Hebrew equivilent is found to interpret this particular Greek term. You cannot honestly go to John 12 where it is the Son not the Father that is doing the drawing to interpret the Father's drawing in John 6:44. An honest interpreter interprets a word by first its immediate context. The subject is drawing not coming in this text. Coming is consequential to the primary subject which is the Father drawing. Jesus did not say, "he that cometh to me I will raise up at the last day" and yet this what you are trying to READ IN (eisgesis) into his words. The grammar demands that the same "him" drawn is the same "him" raised. You are simply not being honest with the text or its grammar or context.



Hos 11:4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.

The Greek Septuigent does not use the same Greek term as Jesus used in John 6:44. There are a variety of Hebrew and Greek terms represented by the English term "draw" but they are not synomyms. There is a general call but there is also an effectual call and I provided several proofs for it, none of which you ever responded to. I will give you a contextually undeniable proof of effectualling (Rom. 8:28-30) - "them he called, he also..."



[I]Your second mistake is separating verse 45 from 44. Verse 45 explains how God draws men. He draws them by teaching them through the scriptures. And when it says "hath heard" and "hath learned" it speaks of a voluntary hearing and learning, not compulsory. [/I]

My friend, you are not taking heed to your own admonition here. It still says that "EVERYONE" experiencing such things comes to Christ not SOME! If what you say is true, Jesus should have said "SOME" rather than "EVERYONE." However, he said "EVERYONE" that hath heard and been taught "COMES TO ME." This kills your position totally and completely.

You also ignore the context in John 12. The reason for Christ's statement is that GENTILES are COMING TO HIM. The Greek text does not contain the word "men" and the Greek term that is there is found in the anarthous construction and means "all kinds" or "all classes." Finally, says nothing about "the Father" drawing anyone.


You are playing fast and loose with the Word of God in order to escape the inspired words of God. This is exactly what every Arminian must do in order to escape the truth of God's Word.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No, it is not a word game. The difference is critical. The difference is between explaining how God controls an issue in contrast to God being the source of the issue. If they are making such a distinction but you are representing them as making no such distinction then you are misrepresenting them rather than representing what they are actually saying.

Now you are playing word games like a teenager. I once told my son when he was a teenager to wash the dishes. I came back about a half hour later and he had washed all the dishes, but left everything else unwashed. He said, "You said wash the dishes, so that's what I did.". He thought he was being real cute. Well, I made him wash all the dishes, pots, pans, spoons, forks, knifes, saucers....

When he finished he came and got me. And guess what? I told him to wash them all over again. In fact, I filled up the sink with hot soapy water and put all the dishes back in the soapy water. And then I told him he had to wash the dishes for the next two weeks (he had 5 sisters), and he should think twice about playing word games with Dad.

And that is what you and others are doing, playing word games like a teenager who will not admit when he is wrong.

 

[Winman]

However, Again, I would like to hear your own salvation experience.

I have told of my salvation experience several times on this forum in detail. I was about 10-11 years old (don't remember the exact date). My family was not religious whatsoever, we rarely attended church. But a neighbor of mine had been a Baptist missionary in Afghanistan. Very interesting, they had to hide from the Russians on numerous occasions. Anyway, they asked my Dad if they could take me and my older brother to church and my Dad agreed.

That day the pastor (and I believe it was Hugh Pyle of Central Baptist Church in Panama City, Fla.) preached a fiery sermon on sin and hell. I tell ya, I was terrified, because even as a boy I knew I had sinned, I had lied on occasion, I had been disobedient to my parents. Well, I realized I was bound for hell and I was very frightened. But then the pastor preached how Jesus died to pay for our sins and we could receive him as our Saviour and have our sins forgiven. He invited anyone down who wanted to learn from the scriptures how to receive Jesus as their Saviour. Well, I was just a boy and very shy, and it was a large church full of strangers, but I didn't care. I jumped up out of that pew and went down as fast as I could. I didn't want to go one more second in danger of dying and going to hell. Well, they showed me the Romans road, how I was a sinner but Jesus died and paid my sins and rose from the dead, and that I could call on him for salvation. They asked me if I wanted to pray and ask Jesus to be my Saviour and I said yes. I prayed right then and there and confessed to Jesus I was a sinner, but I truly believed he was the Son of God who died for me and rose from the dead. I asked him to forgive all my sins and come into my heart.

And you know what? I could tell he came into my heart right then and there. I can't explain it, but I know he came in.

And my family noticed. Last year my Dad died and I was speaking to my brother. He told me that Dad had told him I had a religious experience when I was young. I was completely unaware that my Dad ever said things like this. But my Dad and brothers noticed, and they would tell you right now that I changed on that day.

I am glad to tell about that day, it is by far the most important and greatest day in my life. I will never forget.

Do you have any more questions like this for me?

When did you receive Jesus?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I gave you my testimony in detail just a few posts ago. I was regenerated by the Spirit of God before I received Christ as my Savior. I know that I was regenerated before I received Christ by profession because what was going on inside me before I professed Christ was not of my doing. I was being convinced and convicted of sin and it was not a pleasant experience.

It is not what I did but what God did in me that caused me to do what I did. I love him because he first loved me. I chose him because he first chose me.

What you do not understand is the Romans 8:28-33 passage. You do not understand that God's PURPOSE logically precedes God's FOREKNOWLEDGE and God's FOREKNOWLEGE precedes God's PREDESTINATION and God's PREDESTINATION precedes God's CALLING and God's CALLING precedes God's JUSTIFICATION and God's justification precedes God's GLORIFICATION and that every one that God works all things for their good are THE CALLED according to his eternal PURPOSE and THOSE foreknown according to His purpose are also THOSE predestinated according to His Purpose and THOSE predestinated are also THOSE called according to His purpose and those called are also THOSE justified according to His purpose and those justified are also THOSE glorified according to His Purpose and therefore if God be for US then who can be against US and that US is defined explicitly as those the Father sent His son to die for (v. 32) which are God's "ELECT" (Rom. 8:33).

You cannot honestly deal with the grammar or its context but must reject it because the same "THEM" is confined by context to the "elect".

I have told of my salvation experience several times on this forum in detail. I was about 10-11 years old (don't remember the exact date). My family was not religious whatsoever, we rarely attended church. But a neighbor of mine had been a Baptist missionary in Afghanistan. Very interesting, they had to hide from the Russians on numerous occasions. Anyway, they asked my Dad if they could take me and my older brother to church and my Dad agreed.

That day the pastor (and I believe it was Hugh Pyle of Central Baptist Church in Panama City, Fla.) preached a fiery sermon on sin and hell. I tell ya, I was terrified, because even as a boy I knew I had sinned, I had lied on occasion, I had been disobedient to my parents. Well, I realized I was bound for hell and I was very frightened. But then the pastor preached how Jesus died to pay for our sins and we could receive him as our Saviour and have our sins forgiven. He invited anyone down who wanted to learn from the scriptures how to receive Jesus as their Saviour. Well, I was just a boy and very shy, and it was a large church full of strangers, but I didn't care. I jumped up out of that pew and went down as fast as I could. I didn't want to go one more second in danger of dying and going to hell. Well, they showed me the Romans road, how I was a sinner but Jesus died and paid my sins and rose from the dead, and that I could call on him for salvation. They asked me if I wanted to pray and ask Jesus to be my Saviour and I said yes. I prayed right then and there and confessed to Jesus I was a sinner, but I truly believed he was the Son of God who died for me and rose from the dead. I asked him to forgive all my sins and come into my heart.

And you know what? I could tell he came into my heart right then and there. I can't explain it, but I know he came in.

And my family noticed. Last year my Dad died and I was speaking to my brother. He told me that Dad had told him I had a religious experience when I was young. I was completely unaware that my Dad ever said things like this. But my Dad and brothers noticed, and they would tell you right now that I changed on that day.

I am glad to tell about that day, it is by far the most important and greatest day in my life. I will never forget.

Do you have any more questions like this for me?

When did you receive Jesus?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I will tell you another passage you cannot deal with honestly or objectivey and that is Romans 9.

Paul deals with an objector to the doctrine of election. You can know if what you believe about election harmonizes with the objections by the objector or with Paul's presentation of election.

Your arguments are the arguments of the objector and thus the one being condemned by Paul for a wrong view of election.

Now, this is not NATIONAL ELECTION that Paul is considering but the very reverse. Like Jesus, Paul is denying that simply because you are a Jew you are guaranteed salvation (vv. 3-11). He is not simply talking about God's election of individual Jews to salvation but GENTILES as well:

Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? - Rom. 9:24