Man's hope lies in FAITH!

[percho]

Why did Paul all of a sudden change his mind that Jesus was the Messiah and that he had risen from the dead?

Did something down deep inside him weld up and cause him to believe? Did he suddenly think Stephen was right this man is the Son of God? Suddenly he had faith in Jesus.

 

[Skandelon]

Why did Paul all of a sudden change his mind that Jesus was the Messiah and that he had risen from the dead?

Did something down deep inside him weld up and cause him to believe? Did he suddenly think Stephen was right this man is the Son of God? Suddenly he had faith in Jesus.

If Paul had always been one of Christ’s disciples, wicked and froward men might extenuate the weight of the testimony which he giveth of his Master. If he should have showed himself to be easy to be entreated, and gentle at the first, we should see nothing but that which is proper to man. But when as a deadly enemy to Christ, rebellious against the gospel, puffed up with the confidence which he reposed in his wisdom, inflamed with hatred of the true faith, blinded with hypocrisy, wholly set upon the overthrowing of the truth, [he] is suddenly changed into a new man, after an unwonted manner, and of a wolf is not only turned into a sheep, but doth also take to himself a shepherd’s nature, it is as if Christ should bring forth with his hand some angel sent from heaven. For we do not now see that Saul of Tarsus, but a new man framed by the Spirit of God; so that he speaketh by his mouth now, as it were from heaven.

 

[glfredrick]

In order to uphold the authority of the Scripture, {I} declare that it is divinely inspired.

It is beyond all controversy that men ought to receive it with reverence. This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God has spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare.

Skandelon, you are now using the Word of God as a hedge between the sovereignty of God and your own LFW position. But, if God's Word stems from God, is it not an extension of His divine sovereignty?

I think that you are suggesting that "in our LFW" we can "read" or "hear" the Word and that will work some previnient grace (or magic) in us to drum up within us faith that allows us to pursue God. But you cannot escape the fact that God came first -- HE gives the Word, and the Holy Spirit enlightens the Word, along with the gift of faith that comes from hearing the truth of that Word.

Your position here is untenable...

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, you are now using the Word of God as a hedge between the sovereignty of God and your own LFW position. But, if God's Word stems from God, is it not an extension of His divine sovereignty?

I think that you are suggesting that "in our LFW" we can "read" or "hear" the Word and that will work some previnient grace (or magic) in us to drum up within us faith that allows us to pursue God. But you cannot escape the fact that God came first -- HE gives the Word, and the Holy Spirit enlightens the Word, along with the gift of faith that comes from hearing the truth of that Word.

Your position here is untenable...

That the Scripture cannot be broken means, that the doctrine of Scripture is inviolable.

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. - 2 Peter 1:20 NIV

 

[Aaron]

The cause of faith among them is the preaching of the gospel, so the cause of preaching is the mission of God, by which it had pleased him in this manner to provide for their salvation.

So you're saying that faith is given by God through the preaching of the Word. Why do some leave the preaching without it?

 

[Skandelon]

So you're saying that faith is given by God through the preaching of the Word. Why do some leave the preaching without it?

God wills to gather all, that all who do not come may be inexcusable.

There is an emphatic contrast between God’s willing and their not willing.

God stretched forth his hands continually by his word, invited to himself, and ceased not to allure by every sort of kindness; for these are the two ways which he adopts to call men, as he thus proves his goodwill towards them.

However, he chiefly complains of the contempt shown to his truth; which is the more abominable, as the more remarkable is the manner by which God manifests his paternal solicitude in inviting men by his word to himself.

 

[glfredrick]

That the Scripture cannot be broken means, that the doctrine of Scripture is inviolable.

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. - 2 Peter 1:20 NIV

I do understand that... What has that to do with the issues I raised above (in other words, you are again dodging).

 

[glfredrick]

God wills to gather all, that all who do not come may be inexcusable.

There is an emphatic contrast between God’s willing and their not willing.

God stretched forth his hands continually by his word, invited to himself, and ceased not to allure by every sort of kindness; for these are the two ways which he adopts to call men, as he thus proves his goodwill towards them.

However, he chiefly complains of the contempt shown to his truth; which is the more abominable, as the more remarkable is the manner by which God manifests his paternal solicitude in inviting men by his word to himself.

From whom did you cite the above? Not your typical writing.

 

[Skandelon]

From whom did you cite the above? Not your typical writing.

I was wondering when someone would finally notice.

Every thing I've written in this thread from the very first post is a direct quote from John Calvin.

It was just a joke but meant to prove a point, which is that we (on both sides of this debate) are not very objective in dealing with each other or with scripture itself.

Now, before you all jump all over me. I freely admit that I took his quotes out of context and that his intent was not as it may appeared in the context of our discussion, but that was part of the point I wanted to prove. You can make anyone (even scripture) say whatever you want it to say when you pluck it from its context and use it as a means to support your own views. Though Calvin is probably less "Calvinistic" than some of you (in that he appears to be less dogmatic on the idea of limited atonement), I KNOW that he is in more agreement with you than with me.

I also acknowledge that you could have plucked quotes from Arminius or Wesley and probably fooled most of us, thus proving the same point I was attempting to show, which is:

1. Learn to be objective and less disagreeable just because someone "in the other camp" is posting.

2. Learn not to pull quotes out of context to support your view when clearly the author of that quote is not intending to address the point to which you are attempting to find support.

Thanks! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[glfredrick]

I was wondering when someone would finally notice.

Every thing I've written in this thread from the very first post is a direct quote from John Calvin.

It was just a joke but meant to prove a point, which is that we (on both sides of this debate) are not very objective in dealing with each other or with scripture itself.

Now, before you all jump all over me. I freely admit that I took his quotes out of context and that his intent was not as it may appeared in the context of our discussion, but that was part of the point I wanted to prove. You can make anyone (even scripture) say whatever you want it to say when you pluck it from its context and use it as a means to support your own views. Though Calvin is probably less "Calvinistic" than some of you (in that he appears to be less dogmatic on the idea of limited atonement), I KNOW that he is in more agreement with you than with me.

I also acknowledge that you could have plucked quotes from Arminius or Wesley and probably fooled most of us, thus proving the same point I was attempting to show, which is:

1. Learn to be objective and less disagreeable just because someone "in the other camp" is posting.

2. Learn not to pull quotes out of context to support your view when clearly the author of that quote is not intending to address the point to which you are attempting to find support.

Thanks! :smilewinkgrin:

I figured as much... And your taking Calvin out of context is more evidence to me of your true rebellion against God. Instead of dealing in TRUTH, you misstate to prove YOUR point.

Way to go... :tear:

But in any case, thanks for making a larger point that is often missed here -- that Calvin is not the stereotype hyper-variety that some pin on him.

 

[Skandelon]

I figured as much...

Is that what you and Andy were "figuring" when you labelled Calvin's words as "man-centered?" :applause:

And your taking Calvin out of context is more evidence to me of your true rebellion against God.

Because we all know any rebellion against your doctrine's namesake is equivalent to rebellion with God.

Instead of dealing in TRUTH, you misstate to prove YOUR point.

And instead of objectively dealing with my posts you attack before even considering the intent of the author thus missing the "truth" you so valiantly attempt to defend.

Way to go... :tear:

Thank you.

But in any case, thanks for making a larger point that is often missed here -- that Calvin is not the stereotype hyper-variety that some pin on him.

Another good lesson learned. :saint:

 

[glfredrick]

Is that what you and Andy were "figuring" when you labelled Calvin's words as "man-centered?" :applause:

No, I rather expect that was your own taking of Calvin's words out of context.

Because we all know any rebellion against your doctrine's namesake is equivalent to rebellion with God.

No, because what you did was intentionally misleading. I thought from the first (as I do of many of your posts) that something was amiss. I find you using all sorts of intentional fallacies to win your debates, while asking questions that pose you as desiring a conversation and/or learning something.

In fact, I'm probably done debating you from this point forward. If we cannot be HONEST with each other as brothers in the Lord and CITE SOURCES instead of plagiarizing out of context while trying to make points for one's position, then why bother with further debate. You are disqualified in my book, and my estimation of you has gone drastically downhill.

And instead of objectively dealing with my posts you attack before even considering the intent of the author thus missing the "truth" you so valiantly attempt to defend.

Thank you.

Another good lesson learned. :saint:

I doubt that I've missed any truths... I have learned just how deceptive the enemy can be, however.

 

[Andy T.]

Is that what you and Andy were "figuring" when you labelled Calvin's words as "man-centered?"

Wow, you are quite the trickster. Congrats on your deception. When I commented on your OP, I assumed they were your words, and taking those words in context with your other posts on this forum, I formulated my reply, which was:

"Skan, with all due respect, I believe the central theme of Scripture is that man's hope lies in Jesus Christ. Sure, grace through faith is the avenue, but to trumpet "faith as our hope" misdirects where our attention should lie - Jesus Christ. Do you see how some would see your theology as "man-centered" with a post like this?"

Now, I suppose if John Calvin himself had posted over 3,000 times on this forum with the vast majority of those posts devoted to sotierology/doctrines of grace, then we would all have a different context from which to take the OP, wouldn't we?

So your post proves two things:

1) Don't lie to the board by not adequately citing your sources when the words you post are not your own. In other words, don't plagiarize. And BTW, you still haven't cited the actual sources yet.

2) Don't take snippets out of context to distort reality.

I hope you have learned your lesson on both points.

 

[Skandelon]

No, I rather expect that was your own taking of Calvin's words out of context.

Well, actually the quote of the OP stands on its own merits and meaning, not any specific context. The fact you found it "man centered" is more a reflection of your and Andy's view of my views regardless of what I actually say, which proved the point I was attempting to make.

No, because what you did was intentionally misleading. I thought from the first (as I do of many of your posts) that something was amiss. I find you using all sorts of intentional fallacies to win your debates, while asking questions that pose you as desiring a conversation and/or learning something.

In fact, I'm probably done debating you from this point forward. If we cannot be HONEST with each other as brothers in the Lord and CITE SOURCES instead of plagiarizing out of context while trying to make points for one's position, then why bother with further debate. You are disqualified in my book, and my estimation of you has gone drastically downhill.

First, I did give credit to Calvin in due course and never intended to take credit for his words, so that's not plagiarizing. I already told you my intent. You can choose to believe me or not.

Second, you are taking yourself and this demonstration of how "context and objectivity is important in a discussion" way too seriously. My tricky demonstration revealed something about you publicly and it embarrassed you so now you are lashing out at me, I understand.

Third, there is no "fallacy" in this exercise. Many debaters quote from the opponents sources to discredit their findings or support their own views, some even while keeping the source hidden until the rebuttal. If there are any real fallacies you would like to address you will need to point them out specifically and I will address them in turn, otherwise this is an empty accusation.

(An example of this was when Bush supporters secretly quoted Hillary Clinton about the dangers of WMDs and Hussein in Iraq in order to show how Democrats would attack the quote before they knew who actually said it. This was done to show the double standard and the lack of objectivity of the Democrats in considering the CONTEXT of Bush's decision to go to war. You may think it deceptive, but it was effective in proving that point in the discussion. Which is more deceptive though? The Republican who secretly quoted Hillary and allowed the Democrats to rebut the words? OR The Democrats lack of objectivity and purposeful neglect of the historical context of that decision? You decide.)

 

[Skandelon]

Now, I suppose if John Calvin himself had posted over 3,000 times on this forum with the vast majority of those posts devoted to sotierology/doctrines of grace, then we would all have a different context from which to take the OP, wouldn't we?

That is exactly the point I meant to prove Andy. When we take our presuppositions to the scripture we read into them what we want to see. You read Calvin's words as if I was the one writing them so you understood them to be supportive if MY doctrine, not yours. In the same way, you read Paul's words with the belief that he supports your views which slants how you understand his intent. I admitted that can be done on both sides of this debate and its a warning meant for all. If it offends, sorry, but it still proved that point.

Don't take snippets out of context to distort reality.

Correct. That is wrong. I agree, which is why I did it with Calvin so as to show the ability of it being done with Scripture. I also objectively admitted it could be done from the other perspective as well, a point you both seem to ignore in order to attack the means rather than appreciate the lesson.

I hope you have learned your lesson on both points.

1. You two can't take a joke?
2. You two can't learn anything from anyone who doesn't agree with your soteriology?

Are those the points you mean?

 

[The Archangel]

I was wondering when someone would finally notice.

Every thing I've written in this thread from the very first post is a direct quote from John Calvin.

It was just a joke but meant to prove a point, which is that we (on both sides of this debate) are not very objective in dealing with each other or with scripture itself.

Now, before you all jump all over me. I freely admit that I took his quotes out of context and that his intent was not as it may appeared in the context of our discussion, but that was part of the point I wanted to prove. You can make anyone (even scripture) say whatever you want it to say when you pluck it from its context and use it as a means to support your own views. Though Calvin is probably less "Calvinistic" than some of you (in that he appears to be less dogmatic on the idea of limited atonement), I KNOW that he is in more agreement with you than with me.

I also acknowledge that you could have plucked quotes from Arminius or Wesley and probably fooled most of us, thus proving the same point I was attempting to show, which is:

1. Learn to be objective and less disagreeable just because someone "in the other camp" is posting.

2. Learn not to pull quotes out of context to support your view when clearly the author of that quote is not intending to address the point to which you are attempting to find support.

Thanks! :smilewinkgrin:

Living up to your name again, I see.

Your whole exercise is rather, well, smarmy.

Unfortunate.

The Archangel

 

[Andy T.]

1. You two can't take a joke?

Joke? I thought it was a "lesson." Which was it?

2. You two can't learn anything from anyone who doesn't agree with your soteriology?

Where have I ever indicated this?

I think your whole attempt was one-upmanship and to try to embarrass other believers.

You proved nothing to me, other than how uncharitable you can be.

 

[Amy.G]

Every thing I've written in this thread from the very first post is a direct quote from John Calvin.

Even though I'm not a Calvinist, that was a dirty trick.