Is Irresistible Grace "resistible"?

[quantumfaith]

If I don't, what are you going to do? Throw me in a furnace or maybe a lions den! What is the penalty for refusing to worship Calvin? I plead guilty!

Now that is funny, cmon, you have to admit, that is funny. :laugh:

 

[quantumfaith]

Nobody said to worship him. I used biblical language- give honor to whom honor is due.

You refuse to do that then it is between you and your Maker- the Maker who raised up Calvin to give you much of what you enjoy today.

God told Abraham, "I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you."

That does not apply just to Abraham nor just to the Jews- but to everybody God raises up like Abraham to do great things for God.

Calvin is one of those men for sure. For you to refuse him the honor due him, I believe based on my understanding of Scripture, is to incur upon yourself the curse of God.

I recommend you not do it so flippantly.

Luke, can you even "hear" yourself. I don't know for certain, but I would bet you would have some strong things to say to Catholics for their veneration of Mary. This, that you constantly swipe at that "we" dont honor Calvin sounds eerily similar.

 

[webdog]

God told Abraham, "I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you."

That does not apply just to Abraham nor just to the Jews- but to everybody God raises up like Abraham to do great things for God.

What?!? In context, that is not even close to what God was saying!

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, can you even "hear" yourself. I don't know for certain, but I would bet you would have some strong things to say to Catholics for their veneration of Mary. This, that you constantly swipe at that "we" dont honor Calvin sounds eerily similar.

There is a MONSTROUS difference between WORSHIPING Mary and giving honor to whom honor is due.

If you refuse to bend yourself to this plain teaching in the word of God that is your business.

But the Word of God is clear: Give honor to whom honor is due.

Calvin's contributions to this nation are not opinion- they are historical facts. Therefore he is due some honor for his contributions.

Refuse to do that if you desire. That is all that I believe a man CAN do- what he most desires.


You, in this situation, most desire to refuse to honor one to whom honor is due- so this you will do.

 

[Don]

May I step in with a suggestion? Honor Calvin the same way we honor Washington, Franklin, the rest - raise a toast of your beverage of choice on July 4th, and then get on with the rest of the year.

 

[Luke2427]

May I step in with a suggestion? Honor Calvin the same way we honor Washington, Franklin, the rest - raise a toast of your beverage of choice on July 4th, and then get on with the rest of the year.

That seems a bit shallow to me. Honor people who contributed to the liberty you enjoy once a year, though you enjoy it all year, and forget em till the same time next year.

 

[Don]

That seems a bit shallow to me. Honor people who contributed to the liberty you enjoy once a year, though you enjoy it all year, and forget em till the same time next year.

Have you been raising a toast or saying a thank you to Washington, Franklin, et al every day? Or are you proposing we start doing so from this day forward?

 

[Luke2427]

Have you been raising a toast or saying a thank you to Washington, Franklin, et al every day? Or are you proposing we start doing so from this day forward?

I propose that we NEVER deny the great contributions those men made to our way of life we enjoy ANY day of the year.

That goes for the troops, Washington, Calvin and all others to whom honor is due.

Topass does deny it.

 

[Don]

I propose that we NEVER deny the great contributions those men made to our way of life we enjoy ANY day of the year.

That goes for the troops, Washington, Calvin and all others to whom honor is due.

Topass does deny it.

Just did a look-through of all the posts by John in this thread; would you mind pointing out which post indicates his denial of appreciation for [EDIT: correction, his denial of contributions by] the troops, Washington, Calvin, or anyone else?

BTW: You called my proposal shallow, to which I asked if you've been showing some form of honor daily to any of these men; to which you've now deflected.

 

[Luke2427]

Just did a look-through of all the posts by John in this thread; would you mind pointing out which post indicates his denial of appreciation for [EDIT: correction, his denial of contributions by] the troops, Washington, Calvin, or anyone else?

BTW: You called my proposal shallow, to which I asked if you've been showing some form of honor daily to any of these men; to which you've now deflected.

I don't understand your last statement. It seems to me to be quite a run on sentence. I have a hard time following it.

If you are saying I deflected the challenge you placed, you are wrong. You asked if I propose a toast daily. I said what I propose is that we never deny ANY day of the year the contributions of those who handed us this great nation.

To your question about what Topass said: He said that Calvin had nothing to do with this nation. Who cares that there is not a reputable historian on the earth who would say such a thing- JOHN TOPASS said it so that settles it!!

Utterly ridiculous.

John Toppass- Post 169
BTW Calvin had nothing to do with this free country only those who idolize him, insist that he is.

Only a totally uneducated person completely ignorant of history would say such a thing.

I wish I could be more amiable but I have no tolerance whatsoever for such remarks. I don't care if a person is uneducated- but if you don't know what you are talking about- SHUT UP! Topass obviously is unqualified to speak on the matter.

Does that answer your question?

 

[quantumfaith]

May I step in with a suggestion? Honor Calvin the same way we honor Washington, Franklin, the rest - raise a toast of your beverage of choice on July 4th, and then get on with the rest of the year.

Not a bad idea, but then I would have to record it, for some reason Luke thinks that I am "dissin" John Calvin. Disagreeing with a system of theology is not synonymous with "dishonoring" or even "failing to honor" Mr. Calvin. I am sure somewhere, on some thread I have said, probably more than once, that I respect the scholarship and contributions of Mr. Calvin in a general way, but I simply do not agree with the positions that He has arrived at.

 

[quantumfaith]

There is a MONSTROUS difference between WORSHIPING Mary and giving honor to whom honor is due.

If you refuse to bend yourself to this plain teaching in the word of God that is your business.

But the Word of God is clear: Give honor to whom honor is due.

Calvin's contributions to this nation are not opinion- they are historical facts. Therefore he is due some honor for his contributions.

Refuse to do that if you desire. That is all that I believe a man CAN do- what he most desires.


You, in this situation, most desire to refuse to honor one to whom honor is due- so this you will do.

Luke please explain. Just what exactly does one have to do in order to pay "honor" to Mr. Calvin that would meet with your approval? If by that you mean, accept his teachings as related to the five pillars, then for me, that just will not happen. At least not for the foreseeable future.

But if you will explain how I "dishonor" him in any way. Let me know.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Not a bad idea, but then I would have to record it, for some reason Luke thinks that I am "dissin" John Calvin. Disagreeing with a system of theology is not synonymous with "dishonoring" or even "failing to honor" Mr. Calvin. I am sure somewhere, on some thread I have said, probably more than once, that I respect the scholarship and contributions of Mr. Calvin in a general way, but I simply do not agree with the positions that He has arrived at.

Maybe lump it in with Washington & Lincoln's Birthday & have a white sale for sheets & bedding.....maybe even market comforters....call them Calvin Comforters. I like that & with a toast too. :love2: :applause:

 

[quantumfaith]

Maybe lump it in with Washington & Lincoln's Birthday & have a white sale for sheets & bedding.....maybe even market comforters....call them Calvin Comforters. I like that & with a toast too. :love2: :applause:

Cheers, or as they say in Ireland "Slainte" (sp I am not sure of). If I remember correctly it translates as "Good Health to You"

PS: Never have been a liquor drinker, unless strawberry margaritas counts. I know, it doesnt say much for my masculinity, but I do love very sweet strawberry margaritas. Other than that on occasion, I will have a few cold beers during the week.

Blessings

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Cheers, or as they say in Ireland "Slainte" (sp I am not sure of). If I remember correctly it translates as "Good Health to You"

PS: Never have been a liquor drinker, unless strawberry margaritas counts. I know, it doesnt say much for my masculinity, but I do love very sweet strawberry margaritas. Other than that on occasion, I will have a few cold beers during the week.

Blessings

Dave, Im diabetic so I dont touch sweet stuff.....only my wife & an occasional lager with dinner. That drinking career ended a long time ago.

 

[quantumfaith]

Dave, Im diabetic so I dont touch sweet stuff.....only my wife & an occasional lager with dinner. That drinking career ended a long time ago.

I have several friends who must deal with diabetes. My mother does as well. I try my best to remain active in hopes of keeping it at bay. Going to the gym, used to run about 8 miles each week, but now I have developed plantar fascitiis. Dern, getting old truly is not for sissy's.

 

[Don]

I don't understand your last statement. It seems to me to be quite a run on sentence. I have a hard time following it.

Then you should bone up on english.

If you are saying I deflected the challenge you placed, you are wrong. You asked if I propose a toast daily. I said what I propose is that we never deny ANY day of the year the contributions of those who handed us this great nation.

No, I asked if you have been raising a toast or saying thank you daily, or were proposing that we start doing so; instead of directly answering, you deflected my question to your charge against Toppass.

If you're going to spout off about others falling victim to logical fallacies, you should ensure you don't use them yourself.

To your question about what Topass said: He said that Calvin had nothing to do with this nation. Who cares that there is not a reputable historian on the earth who would say such a thing- JOHN TOPASS said it so that settles it!!

Utterly ridiculous.

Only a totally uneducated person completely ignorant of history would say such a thing.

I wish I could be more amiable but I have no tolerance whatsoever for such remarks. I don't care if a person is uneducated- but if you don't know what you are talking about- SHUT UP! Topass obviously is unqualified to speak on the matter.

Does that answer your question?

No; where exactly did John Toppass say that Calvin had nothing to do with this nation? I'll go back and look through his posts in this thread to ensure I didn't skim over it; I invite you to provide the date/time of the post in which he made this statement.

 

[Don]

BTW Calvin had nothing to do with this free country only those who idolize him, insist that he is.

Post #169; I believe this is the one you're referring to?

In which case, I agree to your statement that he said Calvin had nothing to do with this nation; I was in error. My apologies.

 

[glfredrick]

Luke please explain. Just what exactly does one have to do in order to pay "honor" to Mr. Calvin that would meet with your approval? If by that you mean, accept his teachings as related to the five pillars, then for me, that just will not happen. At least not for the foreseeable future.

But if you will explain how I "dishonor" him in any way. Let me know.

Quantum, not sure if this is deliberate or not, but the Calvinistic doctrines are not the "5 pillars."

That is a reference to Islam. They have 5 pillars.
http://carm.org/five-pillars-of-islam

"Calvinism" has 5 points commonly referred to as TULIP. They were in response (not by Calvin himself) to the 5 articles of the Remonstrance, by the later followers of Jacob Arminius (and note, they did not wish to give Arminius' name to their articles).

The five articles of the Remonstrance were:

Article I - That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article II - That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.

Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.


I have not found that many claiming to be Arminian who actually hold to these 5 articles throughout. More, I find that they have staked out positions AGAINST the TULIP and have created their own theology which is different than above. The articles above are closer to Calvinism than to many interpretations of Arminianism I've seen here on the board.

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantum, not sure if this is deliberate or not, but the Calvinistic doctrines are not the "5 pillars."

That is a reference to Islam. They have 5 pillars.
http://carm.org/five-pillars-of-islam

"Calvinism" has 5 points commonly referred to as TULIP. They were in response (not by Calvin himself) to the 5 articles of the Remonstrance, by the later followers of Jacob Arminius (and note, they did not wish to give Arminius' name to their articles).

The five articles of the Remonstrance were:

Article I - That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article II - That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.

Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.


I have not found that many claiming to be Arminian who actually hold to these 5 articles throughout. More, I find that they have staked out positions AGAINST the TULIP and have created their own theology which is different than above. The articles above are closer to Calvinism than to many interpretations of Arminianism I've seen here on the board.

Sorry for the "lack of clarity" was not being in anyway intentional, just way to commonly describe the system. I was in no way attempting to be disingenuous or disrespectful.

Are we (you and I) still on "good terms"? We are not 'nit picking" one another are we?