Ezekiel 3 Debunks "Election"

[The Biblicist]

First of all, I am not an Arminian AT ALL, and never claimed to be such. But, I actually know what Arminius really believed because I have studied him and actually read his writings which I can certainly say that many Calvinists have not. You have not even addressed all the different positions of Arminianism (there are actually THREE primary views of thought among Arminians, and then their subfolders, and you have not even given an accurate description of the 2 you listed). If you were to admit that I am not an Arminian "AT ALL" you would have FINALLY gotten the point of something I have said over and over on this forum-I am not an Arminian.:BangHead: DUH!!

And once again, you are presuming quite selfishly I might add that I should be addressing YOUR position as if you represent the whole of Calvinist thought. I would actually contend that you don't quite have an accurate grasp on all of Calvinist thought because you only occasionally get something right when attempting to defend a charge against Calvinism.

I did not write this thread with the title, "Ezekiel 3 Refutes Biblicist" so you really need to get over yourself.

You admit there are various views of Arminianism. Everyone on this forum knows there are various views of Calvinism (5, 4, 3, 2, 1 pointers; supra, infra, etc.). So to pretend that "Calvinism" must be defined and fit into your restricted form is simply delusional. You are primarily addressing supralapsarianism. You are right that I am not an infralapsarian Calvinst. However, your problem is that you believe that in repudiating that form of Calvinism you have repudiated all forms of Calvinism and that is simply delusional.

 

[The Biblicist]

I would like to see how many Calvinist/Reformers etc.. disagree with the following:

"In this state of free will of man towards the True Good is not only maimed, wounded, bent, weakened, infirm; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace".

Yes, the will of the lost is in "bondage of sin" just like the rest of his moral nature. His will is the servant of his moral nature and nothing more or less, just as God's will is the servant of His moral nature nothing more or less.

 

[The Biblicist]

Unfortunately for some cals if you are not a cal they do not know what to call you except an arminian. They cannot function outside of their own systematized paradigm. If you do not fall prey to irresistible grace and effectual calling then they have an innate struggle to not lump you in with everyone else. I believe it is just a bit if laziness.

Isn't that exactly what you and James are guilty of???? Did not James deny I was a "Calvinist" simply because my explanation of the will did not fit his paradigm of "Calvinism"??????? I have also read Jacob Arminius and his five points, but the use of the term "Arminianism" covers more territory now because of its developed theological use then it did at the time of Jacob Arminius. Also, the term "Calvinism" has a much broader application now (5,4,3,2,1 pointers, supra, infra, reformed, non-reformed, etc.) than it did when Calvin was alive.

If you cannot admit this then you are simply not well read or studied because it is an obvious fact known to all, even to you, I think.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Well then welcome to the "Calvinist" club as you would be a one point Calvinist.





You are confusing "God" with the righteous. God may providentially bring a person accross my path tomorrow that I have never met and in doing so I discover he is a lost person. I am responsible for how I respond to that providential circumstance which I did not create but am found in.




You are confusing CIRCUMSTANTIAL providence with responsibility and then confusing both with divine election. Suppose that person is one of God's elect, and I am irresponsible in warning him? Does that mean God is unable to save him, or his time for saving him was then and not later by some other responsible agent????? You are trying to confine God and election and human responsibility to but one providential circumstance. God is not that simplex.




Just as the elect will not be saved apart from the elected means through reseponsible agents, the non-elect are not excused of their sins due to irresponsible agents nor are they saved if they are confronted with responsible agents. The only difference is that the irresponsible agent is held accountable for failing to warn them and thus accountable at the day of judgement for his responsibility in regard to the wicked he failed to warn. The wicked go to hell for their sins not failure of hearing the gospel.






That is the problem with you OP it leaves out what is necessary to deal with this passage properly. It not only omits justice but responsible means.



You are denying human responsibility because you imagine that absolute sovereignty and absolute human responsibility are contradictory rather than paradoxical truths.

What did God tell Esther through her uncle? God was not limited to Esther to save the Jews, but Esther would be held responsible if she did not. So likewise, God's elect will be saved as God is not limited to me or you nor do we know the predestinated time in a person's life when they will be saved through responsible means. That wicked person that goes to hell does not go to hell because he did not hear the gospel but because of his sins. However, those who knew the truth and were not responsible with the truth in regard to that wicked person are held accountable for their irresponsibility to that person.




How do you know the time and place God has determined save one of his elect during their life time? You don't know! How many times does God send preachers to his elect before saving them? You don't know! During that period of rebellion how many of God's people failed to warn that elect before it was God's appointed time to save them? You don't know! Are they all held responsible who failed in their responsibility to warn him? YES! Did God save him anyway at his appointed time? YES! So we are held responsible when we do not warn the elect even though God will eventually save that elect through responsible means.






You are adding to the text "election" as your whole post concerning this text is about refuting "election" and yet it is not found there! You are adding to this text "predestinated" when your post is about refuting predestination.

If you are going to select a text that says NOTHING about election, predestination, Calvinism, and irresistable grace and yet use it for that, what right have you to complain if I correct your irresponsible use of this text by bringing in those things that must be considered to properly understand election and predestination. The whole context YELLS that God's holds this person RESPONSIBLE and if you cannot see that then why are you even using this text as that is the crux of your whole argument against election is it not?????





First find the word "gospel" in this text? The text says "warn"! The text is pointing out the RESPONSIBILITY of the watchman to warn and what are the consequences to the WATCHMAN if he does not warn. The wicked cannot possibly be sent to hell for the Watchman's irresponsibility as that would make God unjust when the fault would be the Watchman's instead of the wicked. The wicked go to hell because they are "WICKED."



The text is about RESPONSIBILITY and being held accountable for IRRESPONSIBLITY. Responsibility for duty toward the wicked. Again, it is not the irresponsibility of the watchman that sends the wicked to hell. What sends him to hell is that he is "wicked." However, your whole argument is based upon the idea that irresponsibility by the watchman sends people to hell. Again, if that were true then God would be incriminated as unjust because God sent someone to hell for another person's fault.





It is not just means but our own attitudes that can cause others to turn from the gospel, and that is not even possible if the person is elected.

You are ASSUMING that God has predestinated the salvation of His elect THE VERY FIRST TIME they hear the gospel! What gives you the right to make that ASSUMPTION??? Does not God's word say some "plant" while other "water"??????[/QUOTE]

Wow, this is a truly sick display of equivocation and trying to play on both sides of the tennis court at the same time.

Your initial argument was not about RESPONSIBILITY, that was MY ARGUMENT that in part is actually the whole point of this thread; that God holds the witness responsible for failing to warn the sinner which clearly shows that absent the witnesses failure, the sinner COULD HAVE been saved, and since there are no "could have beens" in Calvinism, this passage destroys Calvinism.

Your initial response was about the responsible MEANS and USAGE, it was not about responsibility. Then once I debunked your argument as being a category fallacy, you have now switched gears and attempted to adopt part of my original argument to make it appear that I am arguing with myself about my own premise while you give the appearance that it is actually YOU that is arguing for responsibility.

You have now FLIP FLOPPED on your initial response.

Now just what do you think happens to a sinner that DIES IN HIS SINS? Does he get cake and ice cream?? The text is absolutely clear that the failure of the witness that results in the sinner DYING IN HIS SINS is why God requires the blood at the witnesses hands.

This final statement proves my entire point against the Calvinist view of election:

It is not just means but our own attitudes that can cause others to turn from the gospel, and that is not even possible if the person is elected

This is the contention that you just do not GET. If a person is divinely elected, HE CAN NOT BE CAUSED TO TURN FROM THE GOSPEL. That is an outright contradiction to the theology of Calvinism. By conceding to this point alone, you have conceded to the contention posited in the OP.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Yes, the will of the lost is in "bondage of sin" just like the rest of his moral nature. His will is the servant of his moral nature and nothing more or less, just as God's will is the servant of His moral nature nothing more or less.

Welcome to the Arminianist Club because that is a direct quote from Jacobus Arminius. Works of Arminius, Volume 2, page 192. :wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Is that all you got?

Yet another one sentence post and you ask if this is all I got?

Ach has an admitted agenda,as does the other detractors like Winman, Van,Benjamin ,and Skan. They do try and offer some links, or some scripture.

Then we have the pile on cheerleader types,like you,webdog,Aic,robert snow,itl,mb,....you do not seem interested to actually dialog scripturally.
Biblicist, Herald,Jbh, P4t,Edward,kyred,Sn,Rippon,Aaron,Archangel,Dr.Bob,AmyG,Convicted1,Scarlett O,and several others offer scripture meant to help.

Others are at least sincere and participate and offer verses or links meant to provoke thought even when we are not all in agreement.

Why should I offer more when you do not want a biblical answer?

ezk 3> is expanded on In ezk 33> the watchman
4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head

Paul quotes this in acts 18 in the context of electing grace and reprobation,even though Ach claims God providentially does not offer the gospel by such means,and your silence toward him suggests you are like minded!
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.


I will offer to those who want an answer...not to you and Ach and the other drive by posters:thumbs:

 

[webdog]

sure RM...as soon as you answer anybody:thumbs::applause:
Ach"s post is not to be taken seriously as he is not interested in truth.He is here only to disrupt any real discussion....you know...sort of like what you do:wavey:

There is more truth in the op than you have provided in your entire time here. The post is spot on, and only those interested in truth can see it :thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

Yet another one sentence post and you ask if this is all I got?



I will offer to those who want an answer...not to you and Ach and the other drive by posters:thumbs:

Amazing you do not see the hypocrisy of this post. Simply amazing.

 

[Iconoclast]

Amazing you do not see the hypocrisy of this post. Simply amazing.

What is amazing is that you and Webdog continually refuse to offer any scriptural discussion...like here, yet another one sentence snide remark, that you are becoming a specialist at......

I do not care what position you hold,RM.....offer some verses or a link,or something....put up...or shut up:wavey::wavey::thumbs:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Yet another one sentence post and you ask if this is all I got?

Ach has an admitted agenda,as does the other detractors like Winman, Van,Benjamin ,and Skan. They do try and offer some links, or some scripture.

Then we have the pile on cheerleader types,like you,webdog,Aic,robert snow,itl,mb,....you do not seem interested to actually dialog scripturally.
Biblicist, Herald,Jbh, P4t,Edward,kyred,Sn,Rippon,Aaron,Archangel,Dr.Bob,AmyG,Convicted1,Scarlett O,and several others offer scripture meant to help.

Others are at least sincere and participate and offer verses or links meant to provoke thought even when we are not all in agreement.

Why should I offer more when you do not want a biblical answer?

ezk 3> is expanded on In ezk 33> the watchman
4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head

Paul quotes this in acts 18 in the context of electing grace and reprobation
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.


I will offer to those who want an answer...not to you and Ach and the other drive by posters:thumbs:

This is not an answer because Paul WARNED THEM, so this actually fits Ezekiel 3 of eliminating the responsibility of the witness to give a warning. Ezekiel 3 makes it clear that a sinner can TURN FROM RIGHTEOUSNESS as a direct result of the witness FAILING TO WARN HIM which clearly indicates that the sinner COULD HAVE been saved had it not been for the witnesses failure to warn him. Paul's testimony is entirely different because Paul is not guilty of that charge.

And really about the "agenda"? Come on, enough with the ad hominem redundancy. Calvinists have posted just as many posts specifically directed AT non Calvinists as has been done vise-versa. BOTH SIDES have an "agenda", some of us are simply honest enough to admit it. I don't slight Calvinists for having an agenda anymore than my own. It is the DISHONEST tactics of such agendas that I have a problem with, like underhanded means to get rid of a forum member or censor their posts simply because they are disagreed with, or getting Non Calvinist threads shut down while Calvinist threads initiated on the exact same subjects remain. THAT is a dishonest approach to supporting ones agenda.

And to say I am not "interested in truth" is an astounding ad hominem accusation. I promise you that I have spent more hours debating with agnostics, atheists, and progressive Christians about the foundations and origins of absolute truth then you have spent traveling across the land in a big rig whistling "Convoy".

 

[Iconoclast]

There is more truth in the op than you have provided in your entire time here. The post is spot on, and only those interested in truth can see it :thumbs:

Many times you were answered scripturally by me as well as others, then you and RM, disappear like a turtle into your sanctimonious shell.

Man up and post your biblical case if you have one....I have not seen it.Whatever you believe...post it with biblical support. Put up, or shut up...we are having a special on that today:wavey::thumbs:

 

[webdog]

Amazing you do not see the hypocrisy of this post. Simply amazing.

Not only that, he added p4t to the list of those who want to seriously discuss doctrine. He is more blind than I thought. With iconoclast, you can engage him in his confessions, sermons and copy and paste verses, and when cornered where you point out where he is wrong, he will make a little joke, add an emoticon, and vanish, not actually addressing anything. He will then come back with 'you don't provide Scripture', 'you are a one line poster', blah, blah, blah.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are ASSUMING that God has predestinated the salvation of His elect THE VERY FIRST TIME they hear the gospel! What gives you the right to make that ASSUMPTION??? Does not God's word say some "plant" while other "water"??????

Wow, this is a truly sick display of equivocation and trying to play on both sides of the tennis court at the same time

No, you just simply don't know what you are talking about and it is obvious as your whole argument ASSUMES that God must have predestinated the salvation of the elect the FIRST time they hear the gospel when the Word of God clearly denies that MUST be so.

Your initial argument was not about RESPONSIBILITY, that was MY ARGUMENT that in part is actually the whole point of this thread; that God holds the witness responsible for failing to warn the sinner which clearly shows that absent the witnesses failure, the sinner COULD HAVE been saved, and since there are no "could have beens" in Calvinism, this passage destroys Calvinism.

First, the text does not say anything about "the sinner COULD HAVE been saved." That is your assumption, your inference not the inference of the text. The text deals only with the accountability of the watchman and his responsiblity. If he had been responsible that still would not have guaranteed preventing the wicked from death (2 Cor. 1:15-17). His irresponsibility was not the cause of the wicked being punished as that would incriminate God as unjust if it were.

Your initial response was about the responsible MEANS and USAGE, it was not about responsibility.

What do you imagine "responsible...usage" is? It is accountabilty for the predestinated means employed. Your error of logic is that you assume every time the gospel is preached to an elect that this is also the appointed time for the gospel to come in power when it is not always the case as the planting and watering scenario demonstrates. So simply because God has appointed the means and responsible usage does not mean that the FIRST or SECOND or THIRD time is the appointed time.

Then once I debunked your argument as being a category fallacy, you have now switched gears and attempted to adopt part of my original argument to make it appear that I am arguing with myself about my own premise while you give the appearance that it is actually YOU that is arguing for responsibility.

No, I did not switch gears or flip flop at all. Do you actually believe that you are the first to present this argument to me???? My response is my common response to this argument that Arminians use from this passage and other passages similar to this one. Your whole argument is based upon the fallicy that predestinated means is contrary to responsibility for those means. It is also based upon the fallicy that responsible use would have prevented the wicked from death and irresponsible use is what condemns the wicked to death when neither is true.

Now just what do you think happens to a sinner that DIES IN HIS SINS? Does he get cake and ice cream?? The text is absolutely clear that the failure of the witness that results in the sinner DYING IN HIS SINS is why God requires the blood at the witnesses hands.

Do you really believe that God condemns people to an eternal hell for someone's elses fault????? That is precisely what you are teaching! They do not go to hell because of my wickedness but because they are "wicked". My wickedness (irresponsiblilty) is laid to my account alone not theirs.

This final statement proves my entire point against the Calvinist view of election:

No it does not! Your statement simply ignores other Biblical data that denies the premise of your statement. Your statement perverts our position, builds a straw man and then triumphantly burns it. The fact is that uncondiitional election is not contrary to God's predestinated time for application which in turn is not contraditory to the gospel being shared multiple times to an elect before being empowered by God to their salvation - as some plant and others water but in God's due time God gives the increase.

This is the contention that you just do not GET. If a person is divinely elected, HE CAN NOT BE CAUSED TO TURN FROM THE GOSPEL.

Scripture please??? Furthermore, this is not the tenet of all Calvinists and it is false to suggest that it is. I know of no Calvinist that believes that the FIRST exposure to the gospel MUST salvation occur to one of God's elect. Calvinist teach that the gospel comes in "word only" many times before it comes "in power." You are simply living in the land make believe.

That is an outright contradiction to the theology of Calvinism. By conceding to this point alone, you have conceded to the contention posited in the OP.

You are simply igorant of the varies views among Calvinists and it is obvious. No Calvinist on this forum believes that the elect MUST BE saved the very FIRST TIME they hear the gospel. I doubt if you can even quote any standard Calvinist theology that makes such a statement?

 

[The Biblicist]

Welcome to the Arminianist Club because that is a direct quote from Jacobus Arminius. Works of Arminius, Volume 2, page 192. :wavey:

I have read Jacob Arminius and I realize He was reacting to High Calvinism. However, as I told Revmitchell both theological terms "Calinvism" and "Arminianism" have developed into a broader application and you know it.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have read Jacob Arminius and I realize He was reacting to High Calvinism. However, as I told Revmitchell both theological terms "Calinvism" and "Arminianism" have developed into a broader application and you know it.

And it is a misapplication and it does nothing but distract from any real discussion.

 

[The Biblicist]

only those interested in truth can see it :thumbs:

Isn't that exactly what you fella's object to when Calvinist say this???:wavey:

 

[webdog]

Yet another one sentence post and you ask if this is all I got?

Ach has an admitted agenda,as does the other detractors like Winman, Van,Benjamin ,and Skan. They do try and offer some links, or some scripture.

Then we have the pile on cheerleader types,like you,webdog,Aic,robert snow,itl,mb,....you do not seem interested to actually dialog scripturally.
Biblicist, Herald,Jbh, P4t,Edward,kyred,Sn,Rippon,Aaron,Archangel,Dr.Bob,AmyG,Convicted1,Scarlett O,and several others offer scripture meant to help.

Others are at least sincere and participate and offer verses or links meant to provoke thought even when we are not all in agreement.

Why should I offer more when you do not want a biblical answer?

ezk 3> is expanded on In ezk 33> the watchman
4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head

Paul quotes this in acts 18 in the context of electing grace and reprobation,even though Ach claims God providentially does not offer the gospel by such means,and your silence toward him suggests you are like minded!
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.


I will offer to those who want an answer...not to you and Ach and the other drive by posters:thumbs:

Let's try this. Where in Acts 18 do you find electing grace and reprobation without arriving at it with this preconceived notion? How do the words you highlighted above debunk what James said in the op? Man up...don't post a creed or sermon, let's hear YOU defend your position.

 

[webdog]

Isn't that exactly what you fella's object to when Calvinist say this???:wavey:

You obviously didn't catch the fecetiousness complete with accompanying emoticon.

 

[The Biblicist]

And it is a misapplication and it does nothing but distract from any real discussion.

if we were living in the 16th century it would be a distraction. However, we are not living in the 16th century but the 21st century and it is delusional to restrict these termonologies to the 16th century when the theological base has broadened exceedingly to include vast variations.

If this is what you and James want to argue about, then your argument is with Presbyterians not Baptists and High Calvinism of the supralapsarian variety. However, even among supralapsarians there are differences.

 

[The Biblicist]

You obviously didn't catch the fecetiousness complete with accompanying emoticon.

Perhaps not! My mistake!