Romans 9:19-21 on full display...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson
- Thread starter Protestant
- Start date
- Status
I was not, and am not, addressing any straw man specifically. I am simply saying if you believe something is a straw man show why you believe it to be so. Counter it. Correct it.
I wouldn't know. I don't chase the rabbit in a game or otherwise. You would have to talk to evangelist6589 if you wish to discuss rabbit chasing.
What have I forgotten. I will admit, at 70, my memory is not as good as it once was, but it is still pretty good, so what is it you think I have forgotten?
I suspected that might be the case.
He just want to say his piece and then leave. At least show us, via scripture, where he believes we're wrong. That's not asking for too much.I suspected that might be the case.
They believe their doctrines must be valid, after all, it has been advocated for four hundred years. When anyone points out how unbiblical the doctrines are, they misrepresent (no one supports with scripture) disparage (theological absurdities) change the subject (what's the criterion of faith), etc, etc.
But has any of them answered the question, does God transfer an individual into Christ based on crediting their faith as righteousness. Romans 4.
Wait for it, we will get yet another change of subject.
Just as you do.
Well, closer to 2000 but who's counting.
Untrue.
Untrue.
Untrue.
Did you just change the subject?
Yes, you did!
As to Romans 4. I wrote a Master's Thesis on Romans Chapter 4. It is just under 400 pages long. Would you like me to post the entire thing or would you rather post the specific verses you believe will stump those of us who believe in Particular Redemption?
I eagerly await your response.
It is pointless to respond to those who deny the obvious. I documented the misrepresentation, the disparagement, and the change of subject, which you edited out.
But has any of them answered the question, does God transfer an individual into Christ based on crediting their faith as righteousness. Romans 4.
Did Tom, or any other acolyte answer the question? Nope.
And then they have the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to claim we do not support our views directly from scripture.
But has any of them answered the question, does God transfer an individual into Christ based on crediting their faith as righteousness. Romans 4.
Did Tom, or any other acolyte answer the question? Nope.
And then they have the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to claim we do not support our views directly from scripture.
Brother,"If" it is a strawman?! ...IF??? Do you not see a problem with such denial, that I just spoke of?
Doesn't the "chase the rabbit game" ever get old for you guys? LOL
I just don't know what it is with you guys! You guys seem to be conveniently forgetting something, over and over and over... I'll give you a hint, fresh off the slate:
Back to the point:
"Give me a break!! Look at the strawman in question from the Op:
Again, "The person who posted this garbage has been here for 3 years arguing C&A and you want to tell me he honestly doesn't know better that the above is a strawman? If after all this time you Calvies don't know your opposition's view better than that you're all a lost cause here and need to find a new line of work."
Simply, those rabbits just keep springing back to life over and and over and truth is "some" here do nothing but encourage (and cover for) the repeating of the misrepresentations presented in these strawman arguments, over and over again...
I happen to be Calvinistic yet sympathetic to your post. You will not find any willing to argue against your view here. What you will find are "calvinists" who blindly defend "calvinism" against Christians who "know no better". Until the trolls are exterminated there is no use in discussing this issue.
I, however, am a Calvinist who will honestly discuss (to the dismay of the pseduo-calvinistic cultic folk here) the issues and passages surrounding Calvinism. If you are interested then pm me and we can discus this via email. I won't discuss it with the few disruptive trolls here as it would be non productive.
I have not denied anything I consider obvious.
When did I misrepresent, disparage, or change the subject?
I asked for a clarification from you to avoid assuming which verse or verses you were referring to. I didn't want you to accuse me of assuming something untrue or addressing a wrong verse or verses and be accused of raising a straw man.
In fact, here is what I said.
I am still awaiting your response.
Is that what I do?
I am a troll?
I am a dishonest pseduo (or even pseudo) calvinist cultic person who won't honestly discuss the issues?
So I am a non-productive disruptive troll?
Is that what you call avoiding name calling and personal attacks?
By the way, I am still patiently waiting at http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/the-5-heads-of-doctrine.100043/#post-2234297
sorry....I answered you on the thread. And no, I am not speaking of you (I'm not excluding you per se, I just can't say at this time...there are times you defend your faith and times you seem to turn to twisting others views....my perception, of course). But I wouldn't hesitate recommending you to another seeking to understand Calvinism as I would others on this board. And its not really as much a matter of education as it is maturity. I see several I believe to be "strong calvinists" but weaker in terms of Christian faith (again, my perception based solely in this forum).Is that what I do?
I am a troll?
I am a dishonest pseduo (or even pseudo) calvinist cultic person who won't honestly discuss the issues?
So I am a non-productive disruptive troll?
Is that what you call avoiding name calling and personal attacks?
By the way, I am still patiently waiting at http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/the-5-heads-of-doctrine.100043/#post-2234297
Last edited:
Protestant
Well-Known Member
Mr. Woody wrote the response cited below in reference to the point I was making: It is an undeniable fact that billions have never heard of Christ and therefore could not have been drawn to Him of whom they are totally ignorant:
Mr. Woody and his pastoral authorities all fall into line with the Rev. Dr. Billy Graham’s doctrinal stance on this very question.
If this is the standard majority view among professing Baptists, sound Bible expositors have their work cut out for them.
Not that this is a difficult subject to tackle, rather the difficulty lies in the ears and hearts of those many Baptists who have made up their minds without thoughtfully examining the clear biblical evidence which opposes this teaching.
The readers should note Mr. Woody neglects to cite scriptural authority to substantiate his doctrine.
His authority is the traditions of men.
1. “God, knowing the heart of man….”
Yes, God knows the heart of man. Here is what He says about it:
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5).
the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth(Genesis 8:21).
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9).
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander (Matthew 15:19).
Man cannot change his stony, unbelieving heart to a believing, pliable heart of flesh. Only God has the power to create:
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 (Ezekiel 36:26).
The Lord does not graciously and mercifully give a new heart to all men:
it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given (Matthew 13:11).
I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (Romans 9:15).
2. “…knowing whether he will accept or not…”
This errant view of God’s grace denies several basic, fundamental biblical truths:
a) God has no need to learn anything about man. He already knows all things possible (omniscience) as well as all things which will certainly come to pass (foreknowledge). His determinative will of purpose is the basis of His foreknowledge. He only (fore) knows what He has decreed to come to pass. Nothing existed when God decreed the end of all things. Therefore, to say God knows whether an individual would choose Christ or not is ‘asinine’ because that individual does not exist until God decrees his existence. And coupled with that decree is the individual’s eternal destiny.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world (Acts 15:18).
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:(Isaiah 46:10).
b) A central truth drawn from the fall of Adam is the fact that man will not obey God. He will not choose Christ, left to make the choice himself. Paul reiterates this truth in Romans 1-3.
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
c) By making man’s acceptance or rejection of Christ the cause of God’s saving that individual, you have rejected the very essence of salvation by grace and replaced it with salvation by a good work. For it is a good work to choose Christ. However, salvation is by God’s grace which exempts anything in man as the cause, otherwise grace is no more grace:
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work (Romans 11:5-6).
3. …..” will make a way for those who haven't heard who will accept. Whether a missionary, or some other means. He will provide a way for them to come to a saving knowledge.”
This is another grievous error which denigrates and insults the blood and name of Christ. In OT times only Israel was given knowledge of the way of salvation. All other nations, with the exception of a few Elect Gentiles, were reprobated, denied the Word of God:
He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord (Psalm 147:19-20).
Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16).
Since billions never heard the Gospel, they died lost, never having had the opportunity to hear and believe on Christ.
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12).
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
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? (Romans 10: 13-14).
Furthermore, Scripture issues a stern warning when another Gospel is preached.
Its preachers are cursed of God.
The Gospel of Nature is one such false Gospel.
Paul refutes the possibility of OT Gentiles (or anyone in NT times) coming to saving faith through alleged recognition and seeking of God through nature:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:18-21).
Mr. Woody, you are a sincere man. I pray the Lord give you eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to believe what Christians have known and taught since the days of Christ. There is a false Christianity and a false Christ who our enemy would have us worship, if it be possible. In Jesus’ name, I pray. Amen.
Mr. Woody and his pastoral authorities all fall into line with the Rev. Dr. Billy Graham’s doctrinal stance on this very question.
If this is the standard majority view among professing Baptists, sound Bible expositors have their work cut out for them.
Not that this is a difficult subject to tackle, rather the difficulty lies in the ears and hearts of those many Baptists who have made up their minds without thoughtfully examining the clear biblical evidence which opposes this teaching.
The readers should note Mr. Woody neglects to cite scriptural authority to substantiate his doctrine.
His authority is the traditions of men.
1. “God, knowing the heart of man….”
Yes, God knows the heart of man. Here is what He says about it:
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5).
the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth(Genesis 8:21).
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9).
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander (Matthew 15:19).
Man cannot change his stony, unbelieving heart to a believing, pliable heart of flesh. Only God has the power to create:
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 (Ezekiel 36:26).
The Lord does not graciously and mercifully give a new heart to all men:
it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given (Matthew 13:11).
I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (Romans 9:15).
2. “…knowing whether he will accept or not…”
This errant view of God’s grace denies several basic, fundamental biblical truths:
a) God has no need to learn anything about man. He already knows all things possible (omniscience) as well as all things which will certainly come to pass (foreknowledge). His determinative will of purpose is the basis of His foreknowledge. He only (fore) knows what He has decreed to come to pass. Nothing existed when God decreed the end of all things. Therefore, to say God knows whether an individual would choose Christ or not is ‘asinine’ because that individual does not exist until God decrees his existence. And coupled with that decree is the individual’s eternal destiny.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world (Acts 15:18).
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:(Isaiah 46:10).
b) A central truth drawn from the fall of Adam is the fact that man will not obey God. He will not choose Christ, left to make the choice himself. Paul reiterates this truth in Romans 1-3.
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
c) By making man’s acceptance or rejection of Christ the cause of God’s saving that individual, you have rejected the very essence of salvation by grace and replaced it with salvation by a good work. For it is a good work to choose Christ. However, salvation is by God’s grace which exempts anything in man as the cause, otherwise grace is no more grace:
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work (Romans 11:5-6).
3. …..” will make a way for those who haven't heard who will accept. Whether a missionary, or some other means. He will provide a way for them to come to a saving knowledge.”
This is another grievous error which denigrates and insults the blood and name of Christ. In OT times only Israel was given knowledge of the way of salvation. All other nations, with the exception of a few Elect Gentiles, were reprobated, denied the Word of God:
He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord (Psalm 147:19-20).
Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16).
Since billions never heard the Gospel, they died lost, never having had the opportunity to hear and believe on Christ.
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12).
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
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? (Romans 10: 13-14).
Furthermore, Scripture issues a stern warning when another Gospel is preached.
Its preachers are cursed of God.
The Gospel of Nature is one such false Gospel.
Paul refutes the possibility of OT Gentiles (or anyone in NT times) coming to saving faith through alleged recognition and seeking of God through nature:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:18-21).
Mr. Woody, you are a sincere man. I pray the Lord give you eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to believe what Christians have known and taught since the days of Christ. There is a false Christianity and a false Christ who our enemy would have us worship, if it be possible. In Jesus’ name, I pray. Amen.
no strawman...he is just compiling what you guys post.
Not one of you can answer protestant line by line, he will eat your lunch
There is no strawman....do not blame the OP for stating what you guys believe. Answer him line by line...show him to be in error.
JonC
No one has answered with scripture consistently. Skan tried , but was exposed ,]many times here as part of the blame God for mans sin crowd....Aaron destroyed his carnal reasoning time after time.
he melted down and was a no show when he had his opportunity to debate romans 9....he hid like a turtle in the shell. RM is a joke as far as offering scripture....his big post..is Cals are arrogant, cals are rude....no scripture no discussion, and once or twice when he tried, he was answered biblically and then went into the BB witness protection program. I do not have any idea who TIL is.
No JONC....it is not "some of us"...we all see and get what they are trying to say.
Again...you can post what is politically correct, but your view is not shared by many here. No cal ignores any objection and when they respond it is this same group of anti cal persons who vanish from the interaction, so I see your observation as quite suspect.
No one has answered with scripture consistently. Skan tried , but was exposed ,]many times here as part of the blame God for mans sin crowd....Aaron destroyed his carnal reasoning time after time.
he melted down and was a no show when he had his opportunity to debate romans 9....he hid like a turtle in the shell. RM is a joke as far as offering scripture....his big post..is Cals are arrogant, cals are rude....no scripture no discussion, and once or twice when he tried, he was answered biblically and then went into the BB witness protection program. I do not have any idea who TIL is.
As I said...skan would try and make a reasonable attempt , and at least his conduct was upright overall.
No JONC....it is not "some of us"...we all see and get what they are trying to say.
That might be your "read " on it....but we do not share your view at all.Some of these men have clearly rejected scripture , over and over.
Again...you can post what is politically correct, but your view is not shared by many here. No cal ignores any objection and when they respond it is this same group of anti cal persons who vanish from the interaction, so I see your observation as quite suspect.
Again...that is your take it on it. You can have it.
Throughout time men have rejected scripture. This is a given. But when someone disagrees with you (and a few more here) this is what you determine to be "disagreeing with scripture) You elevate man in the place of God under the pretence of "divine revelation". This is not Calvinism, brother. It is but a hollow shell ... form without substance...and a discredit to the Reformers who fought for truth.
People have, in fact, disputed via scripture what you suppose true. Rather than acknowledging the differences of interpretation you have offered a quote and claimed some sort of victory. You miss opportunities to discuss differing views and chances to truly defend your own because you deny the others have indeed spoken.
Last edited:
I believe you have a wrong take on it.
You suggest I take issue with those who disagree with me rather than with scripture but you are not correct in this.
Could you show 3 or 4 examples of this? I ask because I rarely offer my own opinion. I think your accusation is somewhat disingenuous.
On the other hand.....you have seen Van offer Mt 23 over and over, when it has been shown to be error.....rm offers no scripture....itl.rarely offers any....Benjamin offers carnal philosophy.....sapper offers no scripture... Deacon chided me to explain my disagreement then he disappears...
You see great value in considering failed views as if they were meritorious.
You are not the only person who has read other persons or views.
Some read them.....see what they offer.....then reject them.
It is okay to reject defective views.....you seem to think there I should nothing worse than to not keep them all up and running at the same time.
Last edited:
I already addressed that and it fits your denial to a tee:
Nah, Icon, you and he’d merely belly up to the trough and claim to be pigging out while in reality you'd be merely chewing on your decomposing garbage strawman arguments that you find so appetizing through your peculiar odd brand of delusional phikosophy that it WAS my lunch.
Now, off to a more important type of exercise.
I agree we are to reject views we find defective. That is why I cherish the doctrines I hold. But to count the difference as merely a rejection of scripture is error, plain and simple. You and I agree on many issues here, but this will never be one of them. I see some, not necessarily you so much, as elevating themselves in the place of God. Having dealt with a few of these "calvinists" over the years, you will be hard pressed to change my mind.
- Status