Emotional or Exegetical?

[Luke2427]

So, if God can kill people and cast them in the lake of fire, not because they are evil, but simply to glorify himself, then why can't we kill people to glorify ourselves?

The first part of your statement does not represent the beliefs of any person on baptist board so it is meaningless.

The last part of your question can be answered very simply- Because God said so.

That's enough for most, if not all, Christian people. It really is.

Luke, you already blew it, the cat is out of the bag. Calvinism offends your very conscience and sense of justice.

Calvinism offends every sinner and every sinful part of every sinner. That includes a sinners man-centered self worshiping sense of justice.

And we all have to mortify that in order to come to the truth on these matters.

You had to surrender what you always knew and believed to be right to accept this doctrine.

Yes, just as Mormons have to surrender their depraved heresies to come to the truth thought they were raised thinking one way and their sense of justice was totally different than the sense of justice found in the Bible.

Just as Catholics have to do.

Just as Jehovah's Witnesses have to do.

Non-Cals do not have to do this, our doctrine agrees with justice.

First of all, you don't represent most "non-cals". Most of them, just like most of us Calvinists, recognize that they are sinners and that every part of them is sinful and that they cannot readily trust their own lost sense of the world and God.

 

[Luke2427]

My arguement is that it is not one or the other, but both. Its an exegeses of Mark 4 and Matt. 13. And its not just a "why" question it is a logical one. It doesnt appear logical to assume a man is born totally blinded from understanding the gospel (as Calvinism does) while scripture clearly reveals that parables are used to blind them lest they be healed. There really isnt much emotion in that.

Yes it is; here is why.

The Scripture plainly teaches what Calvin affirmed: that God "veils the blind that they may remain in darkness."

Your issue with that is "Why?" Why would God veil the blind?

It does not matter why. It matters that he said he does. That's it. You don't need to answer the question "Why?" to believe the Word of God.

You need to be able to believe that God does myriads of things that you don't understand WHY he does them- things you cannot explain.

That's the essence of faith. Believing WHAT God says regardless if you can understand WHY.

#1 - question begging fallacy (i am willing to believe and accept whatever i think God has revealed...i believe my view because i believe scripture teaches it, not because some emotional view of justice that ive invented.)

I think the Bible is ABUNDANTLY clear that men are blind- that they love darkness rather than light.

I think the Scripture is ABUNDANTLY clear that the Gospel is both the CURE to blindness AND that which enables cured eyes to see.

You cannot seem to accept that no matter how clear it is because, it seems to me, that you have an emotional problem with these clearly revealed truths.

#2 - that is not my problem. Its less about Gods foreknowing of someone destiny and more about his predeterming of it.

I don't think that is accurate. You seem to me to lean hard to the open theistic view where there really is no knowing the actual future which will actually happen. Because if you know it, it must happen. Otherwise we have a severe epistemological problem.

 

[Luke2427]

And this is your error. God could not save all men. The only way God could save men was by having Jesus die for our sins and men trusting in this sacrifice. If a man will not believe, he cannot be saved.

So then you don't think God could cause a person to believe????

 

[Luke2427]

True

True

True

True, so far so good!

False, Calvinism is brought into scripture and dumped like fools gold.

If you do not find Calvinism is scripture, it is not because of bias against those who claim they do. It is in spite of our love for our fellow believers.

We disagree on how God is choosing a people for His own possession. Our views are based on what scripture teaches.

False yet again, we know God creates people and then begs them to choose life, but allows their autonomous choice to decide life or death. [/INDENT]


They swallowed the mistaken doctrine in spite of scripture.


Note how those who hold differing views are seen as flawed rather than godly, just like many cults teach.

We see through eyes that are lighted by God’s guidance, same as every other born again believer.

Is it a difficult truth that Christ did not become the propitiation for the whole world, or is it mistaken doctrine based on 1 John 2:2.
Is it a difficult truth that God chooses us for salvation unconditionally, or is it a mistaken doctrine based on 2 Thessalonians 2:13.
Is it a difficult truth that no one seeks God at any time, or is it a mistaken doctrine based on Matthew 13:1-26.
Is it a difficult truth that God’s grace offering salvation is irresistible, or is it a mistaken doctrine based on Matthew 23:13.​

You and I had a debate a while back that had to do strictly with exegeting the Scriptures, not quoting authorities etc...

And you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not, unlike MANY NON-CALS, know beans from apple butter about how to interpret Scripture.

And I am not saying that just because you are not a Calvinist because I debate numerous Arminians who are VERY faithful to the scriptures. One of them is on this board- Skandelon.

But you and winman, I'm telling you, and I wish other non-cals would join with me for your sake, that you two do not know how to interpret Scripture.

Jacobus Arminius would not handle Scripture the terrible way that you do.

John Wesley would not obliterate Scripture the way you do.

William Lane Craig would not murder the Scriptures the way you guys do.

I mean this honestly- CATHOLICS handle the Scriptures better than you two.

I was an Arminian, educated in an Arminian Bible College, pastor of Arminian churches for years. I handled the Scriptures faithfully, though I was wrong about my conclusions. You do not handle the Scriptures even REMOTELY responsibly.

I say this for your sakes and for the sakes of those who might be so ignorant that you could influence them.

 

[OldRegular]

That's the essence of faith. Believing WHAT God says regardless if you can understand WHY.

Luke,

You present an excellent understanding of "faith" above.

 

[psalms109:31]

Actual there is nothing good in my flesh, that is why we can't trust it. The word of God the Spirit and life quickens the inner most being the free agency and it gives it a new will. They either follow this new will the will of God and live or continue to follow the flesh and perish.

If we don't eat Christ flesh His word and drink His blood the life He lived while He was with us we have no life in us.

Where can I go Jesus Christ is the only one who has the words of life.

We have to ask ourselves is it our old creation that was chosen before the foundation of the world or the new creation that is in Christ the born again one?

Romans 7 :
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

[Winman]

So then you don't think God could cause a person to believe????

It all depends on what you mean by the word "cause". I absolutely believe God caused me to believe the gospel, but when I say the word "caused" I do not mean what you say when you say "caused".

Paul asked how any man could believe unless he has heard of Jesus.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Notice that three times in this verse Paul asks "How?". Paul is directly addressing ABILITY here. First, he asks how any man can call on Jesus unless he believes on Jesus. This is simple and logical, if a man truly believes the word of God he will call on Jesus to save him. If the man does not believe the gospel, he will not call on Jesus. Therefore it is impossible to sincerely call on Jesus unless you truly believe he is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead. If you do not believe Jesus rose from the dead and is God, it would be foolish to call on him. Nobody calls on a dead man.

Next, Paul simply asks how any man can believe on Jesus unless he has heard of him. Now here you go, Paul is answering HOW a person comes to believe on Jesus right here. Paul does not mention ONE WORD about the necessity to be supernaturally regenerated to have the ability to believe. If there was any place in all of scripture to answer that question, this verse would be the place to do that. But Paul simply implies that a person must HEAR of Jesus to believe. This is confirmed by his next question when he asks how any man shall hear unless a preacher tells him of Jesus.

If a preacher had not told me about Jesus and that he was the Son of God and died for my sins, it would have been impossible for me to believe on Jesus. No man can possibly believe what he has never heard and does not know.

I also believe that the natural man would never conceive of the gospel on his own. This is obvious when you see people, like tribes in the jungles who have never heard the scriptures. They all conceive of a god of their own making, an idol. And men always believe they are saved by doing good works for this god that pleases him. Thus they give sacrifices and offerings, etc...

So, no man in his natural man would ever conceive of the gospel, and therefore could never believe on Jesus.

It is because God has sent prophets and preachers into the world to reveal his word that I (and you) came to know the gospel. By this God ENABLED me to believe. He did not force me, I had to decide for myself if God's word was true and make that decision to trust Jesus.

Nevertheless, I could not have believed unless God revealed the gospel to me. In this sense God caused me to believe.

Paul shows how we believe in Romans 10:14, we believe by HEARING the gospel. Hearing the gospel enables us to believe, and in a sense it causes us to believe, because the word of God convicts and convinces us to believe. But God does not impose faith on us, we must choose to believe the gospel of our own free will.

Paul numerous times said he persuades men. This is how we come to believe.

2 Cor 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

God uses the foolishness of preaching the word of God to persuade men. God does not force or impose anyone to believe. God convinces men to believe. There is a subtle, but important difference.

 

[Winman]

The first part of your statement does not represent the beliefs of any person on baptist board so it is meaningless.

The last part of your question can be answered very simply- Because God said so.

That's enough for most, if not all, Christian people. It really is.

Calvinism offends every sinner and every sinful part of every sinner. That includes a sinners man-centered self worshiping sense of justice.

And we all have to mortify that in order to come to the truth on these matters.

Yes, just as Mormons have to surrender their depraved heresies to come to the truth thought they were raised thinking one way and their sense of justice was totally different than the sense of justice found in the Bible.

Just as Catholics have to do.

Just as Jehovah's Witnesses have to do.

First of all, you don't represent most "non-cals". Most of them, just like most of us Calvinists, recognize that they are sinners and that every part of them is sinful and that they cannot readily trust their own lost sense of the world and God.

This post is total nonsense. If man must be regenerated to understand the word of God, then there was no necessity for Jesus to speak in parables to hide the gospel from men, which Skan has been saying to you for months. Your view is nonsensical and absurd, and worse, totally non-scriptural.

Jesus often appealed to men's sense of what is right and wrong and justice. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asked his hearers who was neighbor to the injured man.

Luk 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Jesus shows here that men understand what is right and wrong. They have a true sense of justice. Jesus often asked questions like this of unsaved men. He let them answer for themselves, and often confirmed their judgment was correct. In fact, that is shown in this same chapter.

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Jesus said this unsaved man answered correctly. Unsaved men have the ability to make right judgments.

 

[Luke2427]

This post is total nonsense. If man must be regenerated to understand the word of God, then there was no necessity for Jesus to speak in parables to hide the gospel from men, which Skan has been saying to you for months. Your view is nonsensical and absurd, and worse, totally non-scriptural.

Jesus often appealed to men's sense of what is right and wrong and justice. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asked his hearers who was neighbor to the injured man.

Luk 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Jesus shows here that men understand what is right and wrong. They have a true sense of justice. Jesus often asked questions like this of unsaved men. He let them answer for themselves, and often confirmed their judgment was correct. In fact, that is shown in this same chapter.

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Jesus said this unsaved man answered correctly. Unsaved men have the ability to make right judgments.

It is untenable to any thoughtful Calvinist and Arminian alike how you would use "Thou hast answered right..." to support this ridiculous notion that sinners are not sinful to the core.

There is not a thoughtful Christian of ANY stripe on earth who would not repudiate himself from your HORRENDOUS handling of Scripture.

 

[Mexdeaf]

This post is total nonsense. If man must be regenerated to understand the word of God, then there was no necessity for Jesus to speak in parables to hide the gospel from men, which Skan has been saying to you for months. Your view is nonsensical and absurd, and worse, totally non-scriptural.

Jesus often appealed to men's sense of what is right and wrong and justice. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asked his hearers who was neighbor to the injured man.

Luk 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Jesus shows here that men understand what is right and wrong. They have a true sense of justice. Jesus often asked questions like this of unsaved men. He let them answer for themselves, and often confirmed their judgment was correct. In fact, that is shown in this same chapter.

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Jesus said this unsaved man answered correctly. Unsaved men have the ability to make right judgments.

The problem is not that we are not "right" upon occasion, the problem is that God is NEVER wrong. That is a nutshell is where your problem lies.

 

[Skandelon]

Your issue with that is "Why?" Why would God veil the blind?

It does not matter why.

It matters if you believe, as we do, that scripture does NOT teach that all men are born "Totally Depraved" (i.e. so blind from birth that a clear proclamation of the gospel could not and would not convert them UNLESS first effectually regenerated by the Holy Spirit).

We are arguing the validity of Calvinism's claim of Total Depravity here Luke and if a passage appears to suggest that a un-regenerate man might be converted from a parable free proclamation of truth, then the concept of Total Depravity is debunked. That is the real reason you want to dismiss it as 'emotive,' but the truth is that this is a LOGICAL problem, not an emotional one. In fact, let's take ALL the emotion out of it and agree EVERYONE deserves hell, even those with the most faith in Christ, okay?

It's not LOGICAL for God to blind a person from the gospel using a parable to prevent his conversion, if the doctrine of Total Depravity is true. PERIOD.​

If it helps you to stop blaming this on emotions, then let's change it from people to rocks. Would you think it illogical for God to use parables to prevent a rock from being converted since rocks weren't created with that capacity to begin with? Of course you would. That is completely illogical and frankly kind of crazy. Imagine going in your back yard and fearing the rocks are listening to your conversations so you speak in code lest they hear and believe your words. Why would you do such a thing? They are DEAD ROCKS!

Don't Calvinists, including yourself, continue to argue that men are dead like a corpse and thus UNABLE to respond willingly to any effort to persuade them with the gospel appeal? How it is logical to put a blindfold and ear plugs on a corpse? There is NOTHING emotive about that argument.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

What are his "true" words? You didn't post them so how can we examine them?

One option....would be to spend 4 seconds utilizing Google...and type in "Pelagius Commentaries".....This is the first available link...http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198269803/?tag=baptis04-20
One could then read it for themselves in lieu of automatically swallowing centuries worth of mis-representative lies...Your choice.

If all men are born upright then why do all sin? Why hasn't even one person remained sinless?

There are a few possible answers to this, I have thrown out a spit-ball or two myself before on a few threads to explain it, and they may be of merit or not, but none will demonstrate what you want them to demonstrate...To demand that one be able to explain the "Why" even if they don't accept your explanation of YOUR "why" and then to point out their inability to do so, is not an argument which supports your own explanation. It is fallacious to believe that since you have what you think to be an explanation for this question....then anyone who fails to accept your premises is inherently wrong if they fail to provide an alternative explaination as to the "why" of it. Maybe they simply don't know...But that doesn't prove you right. That is false argumentation.

Pelagius was convinced of these things:
1.) Men sin of their own volition, and not because they are forced to by nature, or by an inherited guilt from Adam.
2.) ALL men DO sin, and no one has remained sinless prior to God's act of saving grace.
3.) No Good that man has ever done was done without the aid of Grace
4.) After a man receives a saving grace from God, they are then empowered by God's grace to no longer sin...if they were to choose to do so...they are no longer sinners, but saints.
5.) No one, has, post-salvation...ever remained without sin, regardless of the power of God's Spirit to gain victory over sin. Even those who are saved still DO sin....even though God's grace should enable them not to do so. Therefore, any wrong-doing on their part is to be blamed upon them and not a failure on God's part to provide sufficient grace to avoid it.

There are also these available options for anyone who is not a completely slothful slug:
http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/l...Pelagius'_Commentary_On_Thirteen_Epistles.pdf

One sample would be this:

CHARACTER OF THE EXPOSITIONS 219
the passage to which Augustine objected, and which brought trouble upon Pelagius :
' Righteousness had more power in making alive than sin had in putting to death, because
Adam put to death only himself and those that were to follow, but Christ freed not only
those that were then in the body, but also those that were to follow. Those who are
against the view that sin is inherited, endeavour thus to attack it : "

[Pelagius is here explaining the views of "others" not describing his own personal beliefs, and any literate should be capable of understanding this.]
If", they say, "the sin
of Adam injured even those that do not sin, there- fore also the righteousness of Christ
benefits even those that do not believe, because Paul says that salvation is brought about
similarly, or rather to a greater degree, by one, than destruction was previously brought
about by one" Then they say: "If baptism cleanses away that old sin, the children of two
baptized persons must lack present sin/, for they could not transmit to posterity that
which they themselves did not at all possess. Further, if the soul is not inherited, but only
the flesh, the latter alone has the inherited sin, and it alone deserves punishment." They
declare it to be unjust, that a soul born to-day, not from the mass of Adam, should carry
so ancient a sin which was another's. They say also that it is inadmissible that God, who
forgives one's own sins, should charge us with another's.' Note how what would appear to
be Pelagius' own opinions are so curiously put into the mouths of people indicated by the
third person. Such a vague, tentative way of putting forward opinions is not common in
ancient times.

Go ahead and remain an accuser of the brethren all you and your fellow Calvinists want....No, Pelagius wasn't quite the Hard-Core Calvinist you might have preferred he be...but having bothered to read a modicum of what the man said himself, I do know this much...The term "Pelagianism" (as used by Calvinists) is a false term and meaningless...and although such doctrines may exist...It wasn't Pelagius himself who taught them. HE was not guilty of half of what he was accused of being guilty of. And although some of his positions may be debatable...NONE of them are outside of the purview of reasonably Orthodox Christianity, and they are not "heretical"....not if anyone bothers to read anything for themselves. Here is the weird reality....Pelagius's OWN PERSONAL WORDS!!!! are now available for all people to read for themselves.....and furthermore...they were NOT AVAILABLE for roughly 1,350 years!!!! This adds an entirely NEW dimension to the entire debate...And Pelagius HIMSELF, I have no doubt will be seen in heaven, and as far as I can tell, due to no fault of his own, it will send our Calvinist brethren into a seething and slobbering RAGE!!! to see a fellow brother not being perpetually tortured in HELL as I have no doubt they wish he were. Calvinists will suffer no end of consternation to see the man in heaven, even if he were mistaken about one doctrine or two...when they would have no greater joy than to think that they might smell the sweet scent of his tortured burning flesh they have long awaited to smell, as Calvin himself relished and warmed to in the sweet, sweet savour of the burning and tortured flesh of Michael Servetus as he cried out in pain: "Jesus, Son of the living God, have mercy upon me."

 

[Mexdeaf]

People today do not understand (or do not accept) the true vile nature of sin and thus do not understand their need.

- adapted from http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/video/ultimate-spring-break1/

 

[webdog]

What are his "true" words? You didn't post them so how can we examine them?



You have said yourself that the elder brother of the prodigal kept the law perfectly and was sinless, also the 99 sheep. So you do believe that others besides Jesus were perfect, yet now you're contradicting yourself.



If all men are born upright then why do all sin? Why hasn't even one person remained sinless?

One has...Jesus.

 

[webdog]

It matters if you believe, as we do, that scripture does NOT teach that all men are born "Totally Depraved" (i.e. so blind from birth that a clear proclamation of the gospel could not and would not convert them UNLESS first effectually regenerated by the Holy Spirit).

We are arguing the validity of Calvinism's claim of Total Depravity here Luke and if a passage appears to suggest that a un-regenerate man might be converted from a parable free proclamation of truth, then the concept of Total Depravity is debunked. That is the real reason you want to dismiss it as 'emotive,' but the truth is that this is a LOGICAL problem, not an emotional one. In fact, let's take ALL the emotion out of it and agree EVERYONE deserves hell, even those with the most faith in Christ, okay?

It's not LOGICAL for God to blind a person from the gospel using a parable to prevent his conversion, if the doctrine of Total Depravity is true. PERIOD.​

If it helps you to stop blaming this on emotions, then let's change it from people to rocks. Would you think it illogical for God to use parables to prevent a rock from being converted since rocks weren't created with that capacity to begin with? Of course you would. That is completely illogical and frankly kind of crazy. Imagine going in your back yard and fearing the rocks are listening to your conversations so you speak in code lest they hear and believe your words. Why would you do such a thing? They are DEAD ROCKS!

Don't Calvinists, including yourself, continue to argue that men are dead like a corpse and thus UNABLE to respond willingly to any effort to persuade them with the gospel appeal? How it is logical to put a blindfold and ear plugs on a corpse? There is NOTHING emotive about that argument.

Excellent post. The heart of the matter is not emotion, but logic. The "T" is completely illogical. A corpse does not need to be encased in concrete, blinded and and muffed to prevent it from either hearing the Gospel or responding.

 

[Amy.G]

One has...Jesus.

Really?

Name another. One that is not God.

 

[webdog]

Really?

Name another. One that is not God.

There is no other, that is the point. Your question is pointless and proves nothing.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Really?

Name another. One that is not God.

No one....and that is not a debated point...see the answer I gave you above....Pelagius knew that too. And his writings have been posted for you to read and learn for yourself. You have been answered. Pelagius's writings have been posted and you have been given links. LEARN...........You staked the farm on Winman's inability to provide further links.....and it worked for a page or two of the thread...but I have now provided them for you....as you demanded. Thus, you have been provided information by which you might educate yourself, to then remain in, and thus argue from ignorance is not valid...You remain unaware of alternatives....and thus you are pretending that alternatives do not exist...that is an "argument from ignorance" and it is fallacious.

 

[Amy.G]

There is no other, that is the point. Your question is pointless and proves nothing.

It proves (along with scripture) that man cannot obey the Law. He is not born without a nature to sin.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

People today do not understand (or do not accept) the true vile nature of sin and thus do not understand their need.

- adapted from http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/video/ultimate-spring-break1/

The utterly godless might not (given the link you provided)...but the informed Arminians do. This is no secret to a lot of informed Christian people of BOTH camps.