Liberal Kirsten Powers Converted

[saturneptune]

Coming from you that's funny that I should read more when you claimed to have lead the revolt against Calvinism in college having never read Calvin by your own admission. I, however HAVE read Calvin-and Gill, and Jones, Edwards, Whitefield, Kennedy, Sproul, Pink, Piper, MacArthur, Boettner, et al.. I was a Calvinist long before I was a Baptist after leaving Judaism. So I'd say I am distinctly more read on Calvinism, and have forgotten more about Calvinism than you will ever learn.

And show me scripture and verse that shows God is POTENTIALLY the author of sin. If that's true then He is POTENTIALLY the creator of libertarian free will and now you're back at square on scratching your head saying "how did I get here?".

How can God create the POTENTIAL to sin, with no guarantee that sin will ACTUALLY HAPPEN in order for Him to exercise His sovereignty over those He has predetermined for damnation? If God only POTENTIALLY authored sin, then He hung is own determination to chance, but yet if He determines ALL THINGS, and cause the will of the sinner to do what it can not do otherwise, which as a result, guarantees that the sinner WILL sin, then ultimately, God is STILL the author of sin.

I know that may be a little deep for you but think about it for a while.

That sure is a lot of reading to make the ludicrous statements you do about God's sovereignty. You would have been better off setting the books on fire for all the good they did.

 

[convicted1]

Nosir....The Scriptures teach no such thing. They teach PRECISELY the oppostite.

Un-saved an un-regenerate men whom God absolutely did NOT "elect" don't "always resist" the Spirit, but, rather they regularly obey him.

Here Paul states it un-equivocally:
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Un-regenerate and unchosen and "non-elect" men both KNOW and absolutely "DO" the Law and they do so regularly.

Un-righteous men can and do obey and are capable of, and regularly do that which is right.

Pelagius was castigated for it....but he was 100% right.

The unregenerate, the unconverted, the unchurched, the unsaved can "do" parts of the Law, but not all. They have broken commandment #1, being in their sinful state.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Do you just grab any verses for some shallow refutation?

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
​

Did Paul even come close to stating that God determined that some would turn away?

Nope.

Paul stated that if someone comes along preaching a different message than salvation through God's unmerited mercy, that some would distort - be it a Satanic force from heaven (for no true angel of God would pervert the Word) or some modernist - let that person be accursed.

Will some chase after teachers because they like the delivery, the sensual, the easy believing system, or some other enticement(s) and away from the true Gospel? Certainly.

Some will love this present world and embrace it. Paul states, he couldn't be a bond-servant and hang to the world. (see verse 10) He NEVER questioned the salvation of a person who turned to other doctrine, accept that God (who knows the true heart conditions) will handle such in His own way(s).

God is faithful even in our unfaithfulness.

This entire post is one Gigantically HUGE example of a "Red-Herring". Nothing you said is relevant or even speaks to what W.D. said.

 

[Inspector Javert]

The unregenerate, the unconverted, the unchurched, the unsaved can "do" parts of the Law, but not all. They have broken commandment #1, being in their sinful state.

Show me any commandment in Scripture which states:

"Thou shalt not exist in a status of 'sinfulness' or pre-condemnation"

And then I'll concede that they've broken a law and dis-obeyed God.
It is PRECISELY this form of circular argumentation I reject.

Willis:
Did they "dis-obey" God by "being" in a certain "state" as you claim?
If they did...than you, as an official born-again Calvinist (who spent roughly a week re-inventing your entire Soteriological world-view) must now explain why, precisely God (who is Sovereign) was actually AGAINST their being and becoming what it was PRECISELY his "Sovereign" will demanded they be.

IF what they did was NOT in accordance with God's "Sovereign" will...than, perhaps they actually "disobeyed" him.

You are suggesting that God has created a state of affairs wherein man has no capacity but to acquiesce to wicked desires, but that God has exercised an ultimate control over whether a man be irresistibly drawn to what God claims that he "hates" and then subsequently punishes him for it.

BAH!!!

You sold-out Scripture for your new Calvinism fetish...and it only took about 3 weeks to do it. It ALWAYS takes only 1-3weeks.

You weren't "curious" and "learning"....you had already converted the moment you started "questioning" things.

That's o.k....I did the same thing for about 4 months when I was 27-years old too :wavey:

 

[saturneptune]

BAH!!!

You sold-out Scripture for your new Calvinism fetish...and it only took about 3 weeks to do it. It ALWAYS takes only 1-3weeks.

You weren't "curious" and "learning"....you had already converted the moment you started "questioning" things.

That's o.k....I did the same thing for about 4 months when I was 27-years old too :wavey:

Whatever you say HOS.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nosir....The Scriptures teach no such thing. They teach PRECISELY the oppostite.

Romans 8:7 explicitly repudiates your claim, clearly and explicitly and it refers to all lost men or those "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8-9).

Un-saved an un-regenerate men whom God absolutely did NOT "elect" don't "always resist" the Spirit, but, rather they regularly obey him.

Here Paul states it un-equivocally:
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:


You are misinterpreting Paul's words and application. He is establishing what law the Gentiles can be judged according to on judgement day. They "do" this law no differently than the Jews "do" the Law of Moses - both equally fail and that is explicitly stated in Romans 3:9-19. So your interpretation is direclty contradictory to Paul's stated conclusion which says:


9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Now, go back into the text and find out where Paul last talked about lost Gentiles! You will find that his last reference was in Rom. 2:14-15 the exact passage that you believe proves they "do" good. Who shall we believe you or Paul?

Furthermore, neither did the Jews "do" good either as Romans 2:17-3;8 demonstrate as well.

This is a fundemental truth which are denying.

 

[Inspector Javert]

]

Right here.....that's where EVERYTHING you said just went through ONE ear and OUT the other.

I haven't a clue what your argument was....because as I was attempting to digest it....

You said this....
And now....I'm shut down.

Pity a Sovereign God was too weak to make you a more effective purveyor of his truths.....if he had chosen to, he might have made you more convincing than you are.

 

[Inspector Javert]

The unregenerate, the unconverted, the unchurched, the unsaved can "do" parts of the Law, but not all. They have broken commandment #1, being in their sinful state.

Now...just show from Scripture any commandment which says:

"Thou shalt not 'be' in a 'sinful state' "...
And you will have proved your point.

 

[The Biblicist]

Right here.....that's where EVERYTHING you said just went through ONE ear and OUT the other.

I haven't a clue what your argument was....because as I was attempting to digest it....

You said this....
And now....I'm shut down.

Pity a Sovereign God was too weak to make you a more effective purveyor of his truths.....if he had chosen to, he might have made you more convincing than you are.

Don't judge God's ability or purpose by the weakness of his servants. Should we judge God's ability or purpose based upon your capability to respresent God correctly????? This kind of discussion is pure nonsense and you know it.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Whatever you say HOS.

What does that mean? Are you just being contrary for it's own sake?
Talk like a man. What, specifically, do you object to???
The only thought that went through your head was:

"Say something rather snide and contrary....."
That "Sovereign" God of yours hasn't done a particularly smashing job of teaching you to defend him and his marvelous works...if that's all you have to say. You've just wasted band-width with absolutely NOTHING.

Suggest, (quite politely) to God that he Sovereignly imbue you with the capacity to state something more informative and worthwhile, because that was quite a waste of words.

 

[The Biblicist]

Now...just show from Scripture any commandment which says:

"Thou shalt not 'be' in a 'sinful state' "...
And you will have proved your point.

And your point is........???????? We believe the exact opposite. We believe that there is no fallen man this side of heaven who is in a glorified sinless state!

Again, there is absolutely no scripture that teaches the lost man does the law as commanded but only attempts to do the law and his attempts always comes short every single time because to fail in one point is to fail in all points and therefore one must succeed in all points to succeed in one point or as Jesus stated "be ye therefore perfect EVEN AS your father in heaven is perfect." No fallen man has every yet done ANYTHING "good" in God's sight - Rom. 3:9-12.

Furthermore, the fallen nature in the saved man can do nothing good (Rom. 7:18).

 

[Inspector Javert]

Don't judge God's ability or purpose by the weakness of his servants

.
I won't...but, I DO judge God's "servants" by their strengths and weaknesses. Tell me:
Is there a more informative way?

Should we judge God's ability or purpose based upon your capability to respresent God correctly?????

We do judge your Theological propositions about what you assume to be God's "purposes" on PRECISELY what you claim about them...Yes.

This kind of discussion is pure nonsense and you know it.

It isn't "non-sense"...and I am directing the conversation towards precisely the direction I want it to, or think it should take...and I assure you, that I don't maintain that it is non-sense.

 

[The Biblicist]

.
I won't...but, I DO judge God's "servants" by their strengths and weaknesses. Tell me:
Is there a more informative way?

We do judge your Theological propositions about what you assume to be God's "purposes" on PRECISELY what you claim about them...Yes.

It isn't "non-sense"...and I am directing the conversation towards precisely the direction I want it to, or think it should take...and I assure you, that I don't maintain that it is non-sense.

Your arguement is rediculous! The sovereignty of God cannot be judged by the weakness or strength or theological strength or weakness of any man.

For example, I could take a weak defender of your position and make mince meat of his arguments but does that prove he is wrong and I am right? No! Should I arrogantly assert that his weakness reflects the fickleness and weakness of His God? That is pure arrogance and based upon nothing at all.

 

[Inspector Javert]

And your point is........???????? We believe the exact opposite.

No, we don't, and I made no "point" there. I merely asked "Convicted" to show the Scriptural command which states:
"Thou shalt not BE in a sinful state". That's all.

We believe that there is no fallen man this side of heaven who is in a glorified sinless state!

:sleeping_2: :sleep: Me too. say something else which doesn't bore me. :sleeping_2:

Again, there is absolutely no scripture that teaches the lost man does the law as commanded but only attempts to do the law and his attempts always comes short every single time because to fail in one point is to fail in all points and therefore one must succeed in all points to succeed in one point or as Jesus stated "be ye therefore perfect EVEN AS your father in heaven is perfect."

No fallen man is capable of doing that which will "JUSTIFY" him....but, that isn't the same as saying he does nothing that is otherwise identifiable as "good" or "right".

No fallen man has every yet done ANYTHING "good" in God's sight - Rom. 3:9-12.

Here's the irrelevant passage you just quoted:
Rom 3:9 ¶ What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Now...just show where this passage teaches that no one has ever done anything which is lawfully identifiable as "good" or "right"....and you have made your point.
But, this passage doesn't say that. Not at all....Hurl another random Scripture on the internet and see if that proves your proposition. It won't, I assure you.

Furthermore, the fallen nature in the saved man can do nothing good (Rom. 7:18).

OH....Romans 7:18 exists in a vacuum does it?
place his entire argument in context......

No, man doesn't do anything which "justifies" him, or is "worthy"....but you would suggest that he never does ANYTHING which is according to the Law of God, and that's patently false.

 

[Winman]

Romans 8:7 explicitly repudiates your claim, clearly and explicitly and it refers to all lost men or those "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8-9).

Romans 8:7-8 are without doubt the best verses in all of scripture that seem to support Total Inability.

What folks misunderstand is that the unregenerate man is not simply flesh, he is also soul and spirit, and the spirit can be willing and obey God.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This is the story of Jesus telling his disciples to pray in the garden. It is certain they made an effort to obey and pray as Jesus said, but their flesh caused them to fall asleep. Nevertheless, Jesus said their spirit was indeed willing to obey and pray. This could not be speaking of the Holy Spirit, as no believer had received the Holy Spirit until after Jesus rose from the dead and was glorified (Jhn 7:39)

We KNOW that unregenerate men can obey God and believe the gospel because we have several scriptures that show this.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians received the Holy Spirit by first believing the gospel. This proves unregenerate men have the ability to obey and believe the gospel, and then afterward they receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter's statement easily shows men first believe the gospel (because only believers are allowed to be baptized) and afterward receive the Holy Spirit. Therefore unregenerate men can be willing and obey the gospel.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question here easily shows he believed a person first believes, and receives the Holy Spirit afterward as a result of believing the gospel.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Ephesians 1:13 is as plain as it gets and directly says a person first hears the gospel, then believes it, and only after believing receives and is sealed by the Spirit, thus proving unregenerate man has the ability to be willing and believe the gospel.

And of course Cornelius was not saved, nor did he have the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet he feared God, prayed always, and did righteous works that were acceptable to God.

It is true while an unsaved person dwells on the flesh that he cannot possibly obey or please God, and this is what Romans 8:7-8 teaches. But it is not saying that a man is always compelled to be carnally minded. Many scriptures prove that unregenerate men can listen to and believe the gospel, and when they do they will receive the Holy Spirit and be regenerated.

You must ignore MUCH scripture that refutes Total Inability to be a Calvinist.

Un-saved an un-regenerate men whom God absolutely did NOT "elect" don't "always resist" the Spirit, but, rather they regularly obey him.

Some men obey, some don't. On the day of Pentacost over 3000 persons obeyed the gospel and were saved.

Here Paul states it un-equivocally:
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Absolutely. Paul clearly said the Gentiles who do not have the law DO "by nature" the things contained in the law.

You are misinterpreting Paul's words and application. He is establishing what law the Gentiles can be judged according to on judgement day. They "do" this law no differently than the Jews "do" the Law of Moses - both equally fail and that is explicitly stated in Romans 3:9-19. So your interpretation is direclty contradictory to Paul's stated conclusion which says:


9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Now, go back into the text and find out where Paul last talked about lost Gentiles! You will find that his last reference was in Rom. 2:14-15 the exact passage that you believe proves they "do" good. Who shall we believe you or Paul?

Furthermore, neither did the Jews "do" good either as Romans 2:17-3;8 demonstrate as well.

This is a fundemental truth which are denying.

No, you are simply ignoring MUCH scripture that clearly shows unregenerate men can listen to and believe God's word if they choose to do so. Paul is not saying men are unable to seek God, he is simply saying they do not.

If I were to say to you, "My neighbors NEVER go to church, no NOT ONE" would you understand that to mean they are UNABLE to go to church? NO, no one would ever interpret my statement to mean that, but that is exactly how you are interpreting Paul's words, you are inserting Total Inabilty into scripture when that is not what the scripture is saying whatsoever.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here's the irrelevant passage you just quoted:
Rom 3:9 ¶ What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Now...just show where this passage teaches that no one has ever done anything which is lawfully identifiable as "good" or "right"....and you have made your point.
But, this passage doesn't say that. Not at all....Hurl another random Scripture on the internet and see if that proves your proposition. It won't, I assure you.

Ask yourself this question, "Good" in whose sight? First determine who it is that is regarding it as "good"! Men regard many things as "good" that God regards as evil.

Second, ask yourself what is the standard that God uses to regard anything as "good"? Is it merely attempting to do what His law says is right or is actually doing what the Law says is right?

Third, ask yourself whether a correct word or correct action makes something "good" in God's sight or does the intent of the heart determine it's ultimate character in God's sight as "good"?

Jesus told a very religous conscientious young man who was seeking to do "good" and claimed to have kept all the Law that there was "none good but one." That certainly limits the field doesn't it?

Jesus told others who were investing in doing good that the tree MUST first be made "good" before the fruit can be called "good."

Jesus told the same crowd that everything you do comes from the heart - its motives.

Now you are claiming that lost unregenerated people can do "good" before the tree is made good, before they have a heart that is good simply because their words and actions are "good" in the sight of men.

Romans 3:9-19 defies your interpretation and if you think this passage is "irrelevant" you are advertising extreme ignorance of not merely the Scriptures but your own level of Christian maturity.

 

[Winman]

We know for a fact that Cornelius was not saved, and that he did not have the receive the Holy Spirit until Peter came and preached the gospel to him, but he was able to do righteous works.

Acts 10:30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Again, Cornelius was not saved, and he did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he was able to do righteous works that were acceptable to God.

Total Inability is false and easily refuted by MUCH scripture. Calvinists simply close their eyes are are willingly blind to scripture.

 

[Luke2427]

Not only is that not all Calvinism is saying, that's not really what Kirsten Powers said either! What Calvinist would say the following had anything to do with their salvation:

"Tim Keller had made such a strong case, that I began to think it’s not even smart to reject this. It just doesn’t seem like a good intellectual decision."

Every Calvinist that ever lived- I estimate.

Only HYPERCalvinists would deny it.

Calvinists believe God uses means to overcome the hearts of men in bringing them to salvation.

Your problem is the same as most other people's problem with Calvinism. You are terribly uneducated about what Calvinism is.

 

[Luke2427]

Besides the blasphemy that Calvinism is the gospel, we now get Calvinism is the Holy Spirit.

Why can't what happened be the continued her work of the Holy Spirit on her heart and not man's systematic theology? Pure arrogance.

Because theology is nothing but the outworking of who God is and how God does things.

How God saved Kirsten Powers is the way he saves everybody who is saved- not according to their wills but according to his grace.

A good theology will reflect that.

 

[saturneptune]

What does that mean? Are you just being contrary for it's own sake?
Talk like a man. What, specifically, do you object to???
The only thought that went through your head was:

"Say something rather snide and contrary....."
That "Sovereign" God of yours hasn't done a particularly smashing job of teaching you to defend him and his marvelous works...if that's all you have to say. You've just wasted band-width with absolutely NOTHING.

Suggest, (quite politely) to God that he Sovereignly imbue you with the capacity to state something more informative and worthwhile, because that was quite a waste of words.

All I have to say is that you are theologically pathetic.