HEY CALVINISTS! Are we "Totally Depraved" from birth???

[Frogman]

you forgot one:

the Bible says the apostles are children of God, where does it say that about us?

Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
Does that mean you won't explain because of a perceived misspelling?

Well, for one thing the misspelling isnot perceived. It is a fact.

For another, since you are arminian, you already know how you (mis)use the verse, and don't need me to explain it to you.

For yet another thing, the issue is whether the Calvanist application is warranted when taking the verse in context. It has been demonstrated that it is. Does your question mean that you won't address that? </font>[/QUOTE]You are simply quite wrong about me, I am not an Arminian (Armenian), nor a calvinist. I am Christian...unhyphenated. Leave it at that!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
BTW, the bible says the Apostles were effectually called to apostleship. Where does it say that about all of us?

Where does it say you have to be an apostle to be saved?

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The Bible says the Apostles given the mysteries of the kingdom from God. Where does it say that about all of us?

The "mystery" you're talking about is the inclusion of the Gentiles. Where does it say you have to have that mystery revealed to you directly from God in order to be saved?

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The Bible says that the Apostles were going to be supernaturally gifted. Where does it say that about all of us?

It says that about non-apostles in 1 Corinthians (apparently it doesn't say it in your whitespace edition of the Bible.)

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret? 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts.

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The Bible teaches that the Apostles were the only ones who were taught directly from the Incarnate word. Where does it say that about the rest of us?

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The apostle Paul when discribing his unique apostleship says he was "set apart from birth." Where does it say that about the rest of us?

Where does it say you have to be set apart to be an apostle in order to be saved?

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The Bible teaches that the Apostles were divinely inspired. Where does it say that about the rest of us?

1 Corinthians 12, earlier in the chapter.

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The Apostles are different than us, just like Christ is different than us and them. Do you assume that everything that is true of Christ is true of us or the apostles? Of course not. So why do you assume that everything that is true of the apostles is also true of us?

I don't. So you've demonstrated that the apostles are different in some respects. What you have completely failed to demonstrate from scripture is that they are elected and saved differently than we are.

 

[Bible-belted]

Yelsew,

If you want to dodge the question, go for it. I will take your answer to mean that you really are not interested in discussing the verse. You wil discuss anything else but that apparantly.

Your remarks about being an "un-hyphenated" Christian are irrelevant. Your theology is Arminian whether you accept that designation or not.

Bro Bill.

The apostles are certainly not like the rest of the Body in that they have a particular function within the body that is given to them and them only by the Holy Spirit (Rp. 12:3-8).

However that does not mean they are saved by different means or are otherwise above the rest of us. Indeed the Body theology of Paul denies this very thing. See 1Co 12.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
However that does not mean they are saved by different means or are otherwise above the rest of us. Indeed the Body theology of Paul denies this very thing. See 1Co 12.

I think my view has been mischaracterized to the point that people are taking it to absurd extremes. Please understand that I believe that the apostles are saved by Grace through the atoning work of Christ blood upon the cross. It's not their salvation really that I'm pointing to as being different as much as it is their appointing. The apostles were "set apart from birth" and hand selected by the incarnate word to recieve a very unique calling. Could God have left that to their choice? Yes, I guess He could, but I think he secured it sovereignly by his choice so as to ensure His will was carried out in this manner. Like Jonah was effectually called to preach to Ninevah, the apostles were effectually called to preach even to the Gentiles.

It's the passages that have to do with this divine calling that Calvinists often apply to their soteriology. For example, when Jesus said, "You did not choose me, I chose you." (Jn. 15:16) He was obviously speaking to the apostles. Should we automatically assume he chooses all of those who would believe in their message while leaving the others to damnation based upon this? I don't think so.

Jesus says many things to his apostles that don't necessarily apply to us in the way that it applied to them. They were given inspirational authority and supernatural gifting. Some groups assume and even try to manufactor this within themselves because they assume that Christ must mean that all believers should have the abilities of the apostles. This is poor hemeneutics which leads to poor theology.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The Bible teaches that the Apostles were divinely inspired. Where does it say that about the rest of us?

posted by Npetreley
1 Corinthians 12, earlier in the chapter.

So, you believe that 1 Cor teaches that we are divinely inspired as the apostles were?

Well, shoot let's tear off the back cover of our Bibles and keep on writing, because according to 1 Cor. 12 we are all as inspired as the Apostles were.

 

[Bible-belted]

Bro. Bill.

I am sorry you feel your view is being mischaracterised. Let me address your concern.

For example, when Jesus said, "You did not choose me, I chose you." (Jn. 15:16) He was obviously speaking to the apostles. Should we automatically assume he chooses all of those who would believe in their message while leaving the others to damnation based upon this? I don't think so.

As a matter of practice we DO assume that what Jesus says to the apostles he says to us. It is called submitting to the autoirity of Christ and His Word.

As a matter of exegesis we keep that assumtion that what is said to them is equally applicable to us, unless the context indicates a narrowng of the audience.

In your example of John 15:16 does not provide such a case. Jesus words in John 15:15 begin all the way back in John 13 and finishes at the end of John 17. Are we to look at all of that and say we cannot apply anything that Jesus says there because it is said to the apostles?

Of course not.

So why John 15:16? Is ther a specific reason? None in context. John 15:16 is in the vine and branches discourse about bearing fruit for God. That passage appplies to all believers, not simply the apostles. All believers are chosen in order to bear fruit. That is not true merely of the apostles. Therefore the broader application to all belivers is valid.

But what of the application to soteriology? Is there soteriology here? After all this is about bearing fruit for Christ. There is! John 15:16 reads: "You did not choose me but I chose you, and appointed you you that youwould go and bear fruit..."

There are two things happening then, choosing and appointing. The appointing is to bear fruit. What do you suppose the choosing is for? It is not identical with the appointing. Since the choosing comes before the appointing to bear fruit it seems quite reasonable that what us in view here is choosing for salvation, particulalrly in light of the other mention of chosing in John 6:60-71, where believing and salvation are very much in view (see 6:63,64, 65, 68,79).

It seems to me that you allow your a priori assumptions to govern the text more than is waranted.

 

[Bible-belted]

So, you believe that 1 Cor teaches that we are divinely inspired as the apostles were?

1Co. 12 is not about inspiration to write scriture as such. Not everythig an apostled did was uniquely do able by apostles. And lets not forget that the writing of Scripture was not restricted to the aposltes themselves.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
As a matter of practice we DO assume that what Jesus says to the apostles he says to us. It is called submitting to the autoirity of Christ and His Word.

As a matter of exegesis we keep that assumtion that what is said to them is equally applicable to us, unless the context indicates a narrowng of the audience.

Thank you for at least acknowledging that there could be a "narrowing of the audience." I believe this is warrented in many passages because of the whole context of scripture.

The scriptures teaching about God's choosing, appointing, supernaturally gifting and divinly inspiring the apostles are often applied to be true of all believers thus removing the uniqueness and authority of their position.

Do you believe Jesus was speaking to all of us when he wrote, "You will do greater signs than this..."?

What context of this passage "narrows" this down to apply only to the apostles?

Key principle of exegesis in these matters: Whatever is true of the saints is true of the Apostles, but whatever is true of the Apostles may or may not be true of all the saints.

Determining what is true of all the saints is the key to this dilema. I beleive that the whole counsel of God's word makes much more reasonable sense with the understanding that God's words concerning the apostles appointing does not apply to the soteriology of all people. This is especially true in light of the fact man seems to be expected to decide for himself once he hears the message from the apostles.

I think a good comparison is Jonah and Ninevah. Much is said about God's effectually calling Jonah to fulfill his task but nothing is said about God's effectually or uneffectually doing anything for Jonah's audience.

Could it be that God's sovereign appointing of his divine messengers is a bit different than his dealings with their audiences? I believe so. And I believe it reconciles the scripture without creating the unnecessary paradoxes, confusion and devisiveness of Calvinism. More importantly I believe you can see that it supported by scripture if you are willing to view it objectively and not always through Calvinistic lenses.

 

[Bible-belted]

Thank you for at least acknowledging that there could be a "narrowing of the audience."

I don't think anyone could do otherwise and be honest. Iit is obvious though we differ as to what constitutes a compelling reaon to see such.

I believe this is warrented in many passages because of the whole context of scripture.

I think the oppostie for the same reason. This is why my criterion is immediate context. What you do is superimpose a system over individual texts, or at least smacks of it too much for my liking.

The scriptures teaching about God's choosing, appointing, supernaturally gifting and divinly inspiring the apostles are often applied to be true of all believers thus removing the uniqueness and authority of their position.

I disagree. Those scriptures, particulalrly the ones dealign with spritual gfifting, give warrant for seeing the apostles as being like us. Not that everything they do is what we do, but the disjunction you propose is not tenable biblically.

Do you believe Jesus was speaking to all of us when he wrote, "You will do greater signs than this..."?

Sure.

What context of this passage "narrows" this down to apply only to the apostles?

Nothing. There is no warrant for seeing the apostles as not being representative of believers generally. Considering what the church as a whole has done since Christ's ascension, it seems obvious that the words of Christ have rung totally true.

Key principle of exegesis in these matters: Whatever is true of the saints is true of the Apostles, but whatever is true of the Apostles may or may not be true of all the saints.

That is a truism. It is also applicable to any other member of the Body.

I beleive that the whole counsel of God's word makes much more reasonable sense with the understanding that God's words concerning the apostles appointing does not apply to the soteriology of all people.

That would be the triumph of a system of thought over immedate context, and as such, in error.

Could it be that God's sovereign appointing of his divine messengers is a bit different than his dealings with their audiences? I believe so. And I believe it reconciles the scripture without creating the unnecessary paradoxes, confusion and devisiveness of Calvinism. More importantly I believe you can see that it supported by scripture if you are willing to view it objectively and not always through Calvinistic lenses.

You are comapring apples and oranges. When it comes to soteriology, choosing is choosing. But within the body different eople are appointed to differnet functions. Unfortunately what you try to do is take the fact that we are chosen to do different tasks to deny that we are chosen to salvation.

You argue in a circle in that way.
So what I see is flawed thinking. You argue inacircular manner, foist the demands of your theoogical prinicple on the text regardlss of the indications of the immediate context, and you confuse appointment to a function in the body with appointment to the Body.

 

[William C]

You differ from most Calvinists on your views of supernatural gifting.

So, has anyone seen anyone walk on water or calm a storm recently?

You should read MacArthur's works on apostlic authority to gain some perspective on this subject.

You are comapring apples and oranges. When it comes to soteriology, choosing is choosing. But within the body different eople are appointed to differnet functions. Unfortunately what you try to do is take the fact that we are chosen to do different tasks to deny that we are chosen to salvation.

You are accusing me of apply God's choice of us to different tasks to our choice of being saved, but this is exactly what Calvinists are doing. You are taking passages that are speaking about God's choice or election of individuals to the task of Apostleship and applying that to soteriology of all man. You are taking passages that speak about their being set apart for a unique task and apply it to salvation. When I step into your falacy and begin to point out the differences as I have done with Jonah you can see the problem, but are you willing to acknowledge it? That's the real measure of your objectiveness and honesty in dealing with these issues.

Let me ask the question again. Could it be that God deals differently with those who are appointed to carry the divinly inspired message than He does with those who are chosen to hear their message? I think the entire counsel of scripture proves that is the case. He has always dealt with the prophets and apostles in a uniquely sovereign way. Why?

Maybe because He wants to guarentee that His message is delivered correctly.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Maybe because He wants to guarentee that His message is delivered correctly.

I see. God takes over the will of those He needs to manipulate in order to guarantee the integrity of the Gospel message. On the other hand, He is not as interested in making sure the people He calls with the Gospel message will actually respond to it, so He ducks out and lets them decide.

That's a new twist on the character of God. Spelling is more important than eternal destiny.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Maybe because He wants to guarentee that His message is delivered correctly.

I see. God takes over the will of those He needs to manipulate in order to guarantee the integrity of the Gospel message. On the other hand, He is not as interested in making sure the people He calls with the Gospel message will actually respond to it, so He ducks out and lets them decide.

That's a new twist on the character of God. Spelling is more important than eternal destiny. </font>[/QUOTE]As opposed to the deceptive character of God which pretends like he wants to save everyone by calling them all to repentance knowing full well that only some of them can even understand His call.

Or the character of God that leads people to believe that it is their choice only to be corrected later once they are mature enough to accept the Calvinistic dogma.

Or how about the character of God who chooses to bind all men over to disobedience only to have mercy on a few of them. You see I'm willing to admit that God subjected creation to frustration and that he bound all men over to sin through the Fall, I am just not willing to admit that he leaves most of them that way so as to glorify himself.

"He bound all men over to disobedience so that He might have mercy on them ALL."

 

[npetreley]

Ro 11:32 For God hath concluded [sugkleivw: to shut up together, enclose, of a shoal of fishes in a net, to shut up on all sides, shut up completely] all [pas: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything, collectively some of all types] in unbelief [apeitheia: obstinacy, obstinate opposition to the divine will], that he might have mercy upon all [pas: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything, collectively some of all types].

 

[William C]

The same "all" that was bound in unbelief is the same "all" that are shown mercy.

Do you only believe that the elect were bound in unbelief?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The same "all" that was bound in unbelief is the same "all" that are shown mercy.

Do you only believe that the elect were bound in unbelief?

It's the same word, but that doesn't mean it must refer to the same scope. It could be all (everyone) were bound, so that all (of the elect) are shown mercy. Or all (of the elect) are bound so that all (everyone) is shown mercy. Or all (everyone) is bound so that all (everyone) is shown mercy. Or all (everyone) is bound so that all (who choose of their own free will) are shown mercy.

I'm sure you can figure out which it must be based on something the Bible does not say.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
The same "all" that was bound in unbelief is the same "all" that are shown mercy.

Do you only believe that the elect were bound in unbelief?

It's the same word, but that doesn't mean it must refer to the same scope. It could be all (everyone) were bound, so that all (of the elect) are shown mercy. Or all (of the elect) are bound so that all (everyone) is shown mercy. Or all (everyone) is bound so that all (everyone) is shown mercy. Or all (everyone) is bound so that all (who choose of their own free will) are shown mercy. </font>[/QUOTE]What is wrong with the most obvious interpretation which you presented could be:

"Or all (everyone) is bound so that all (everyone) is shown mercy."

I will tell you what I think is wrong with your choice which I assume is:

"All (everyone) were bound, so that all (of the elect) are shown mercy."

2 reason's this can't be the interpretation:
1. The subjunctive mood is used in reference to those he MIGHT show mercy. In other words, if this passage supported your views it would read: "God has bound all men over to disobiedence so that he WILL have mercy on all (of the elect)."

But it doesn't say that; it says, "so that he MIGHT have mercy" which as I stated is the subjunctive mood meaning that it is not a certainity but a possibility. If the second "all" in this passage is in reference to the elect why would Paul use the subjunctive case? He wouldn't because their salvation, according to your view, would not be a possiblity but a certainity.

2. If God is responsible for binding all men over to disobiedence (which we both believe He is) and He only provides mercy for a select few (as Calvinists believe) then He left responsible for the perishing of the wicked and man does have an excuse.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:

2 reason's this can't be the interpretation:
1. The subjunctive mood is used in reference to those he MIGHT show mercy. In other words, if this passage supported your views it would read: "God has bound all men over to disobiedence so that he WILL have mercy on all (of the elect)."

But it doesn't say that; it says, "so that he MIGHT have mercy" which as I stated is the subjunctive mood meaning that it is not a certainity but a possibility. If the second "all" in this passage is in reference to the elect why would Paul use the subjunctive case? He wouldn't because their salvation, according to your view, would not be a possiblity but a certainity.

2. If God is responsible for binding all men over to disobiedence (which we both believe He is) and He only provides mercy for a select few (as Calvinists believe) then He left responsible for the perishing of the wicked and man does have an excuse.

Hey Nick, did you decide not to answer this one because I was using tricky debate tactics or was there another reason?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Hey Nick, did you decide not to answer this one because I was using tricky debate tactics or was there another reason?

Yes, because your debate tactics are based on logical fallacies. All you said was that it is subjunctive, and then added the non-sequitur that it follows that X interpretation is not possible. But it is possible, and my point that the "all" does not tell you the scope remains the same. So I'll gladly modify my text accordingly:

It's the same word, but that doesn't mean it must refer to the same scope. It could be all (everyone) were bound, so that God might have mercy on all (of the elect). Or all (of the elect) are bound so that God might have mercy on all (everyone). Or all (everyone) is bound so that God might have mercy on all (everyone). Or all (everyone) is bound so that God might have mercy on all (who choose of their own free will).

Happy?

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Hey Nick, did you decide not to answer this one because I was using tricky debate tactics or was there another reason?

Yes, because your debate tactics are based on logical fallacies. All you said was that it is subjunctive, and then added the non-sequitur that it follows that X interpretation is not possible. But it is possible, and my point that the "all" does not tell you the scope remains the same. </font>[/QUOTE]Nick, if "all" means "the elect" then why would Paul use the subjunctive case?

Is the elects getting mercy uncertain?