Non-Cals prayer for Non-Believers

[steaver]

AMAZING!:laugh:

Please do me a favor Steve.....NEVER presume to speak for anyone who has a Reformed theological background. My friend, you don't even have the ABC's down.

Good advice, I didn't know I was speaking for someone else. Blessings!

 

[steaver]

The Westminster Confession of Faith 1646,47. Yes, it's certainly Calvinistic but Calvin died in 1564. However, there were a number of other Reformers of his age --he wasn't the only one who was --shall we say --Calvinistic. The Puritans who contributed to the WCoF were in good step with the man from Geneva.

The London Confession of 1689 (really written in the mid-50's) was a modification of the Savoy Declaration --which was a slight modification of the WCoF. Those three condense major Bible doctrines into manageable form. They are, of course uninspired --but authoritative, yet--subservient to the Word of God.

So the idea of TULIP did originate with Calvin then. I guess that is why we call it Calvinism and why I said good thing God sent us Calvin to straighten us out.
Blessings!

 

[Rippon]

So the idea of TULIP did originate with Calvin then. I guess that is why we call it Calvinism and why I said good thing God sent us Calvin to straighten us out.
Blessings!

You have some loose ideas running ahead of you. So as you scramble things let me suggest you get some good Church history books.

The so-called TULIP was invented in 1905 or thereabouts. The Canons of Dort dealt with the five Remonstrant (Arminian)propositions. The Remonstrant teachings were finally adjudged to be at variance with the Bible by the Synod of Dort.

In his lifetime Calvin did not deal with that controversy as such. Although he did encounter the teachings of some individuals who reminds one of Mr. Arminius.

The biblical responses of the Synod were in harmony with what Calvin had taught --but not just the teachings of Calvin alone.

 

[Greektim]

You have some loose ideas running ahead of you. So as you scramble things let me suggest you get some good Church history books.

The so-called TULIP was invented in 1905 or thereabouts. The Canons of Dort dealt with the five Remonstrant (Arminian)propositions. The Remonstrant teachings were finally adjudged to be at variance with the Bible by the Synod of Dort.

In his lifetime Calvin did not deal with that controversy as such. Although he did encounter the teachings of some individuals who reminds one of Mr. Arminius.

The biblical responses of the Synod were in harmony with what Calvin had taught --but not just the teachings of Calvin alone.

Remonstrance not remonstrant. Remonstrance=protest.

 

[steaver]

You have some loose ideas running ahead of you. So as you scramble things let me suggest you get some good Church history books.

The so-called TULIP was invented in 1905 or thereabouts. The Canons of Dort dealt with the five Remonstrant (Arminian)propositions. The Remonstrant teachings were finally adjudged to be at variance with the Bible by the Synod of Dort.

In his lifetime Calvin did not deal with that controversy as such. Although he did encounter the teachings of some individuals who reminds one of Mr. Arminius.

The biblical responses of the Synod were in harmony with what Calvin had taught --but not just the teachings of Calvin alone.

I try to keep things simple for my simple mind. So should I believe Calvin's teachings agrees with TULIP, or vice versa? And is TULIP, Calvinism, DoG all the same teachings or am I confusing all this? I always thought they all taught the same doctrines and thus I could talk about them all in the same debates as one in the same.

 

[Van]

Like all Calvinists, Luke rewrote the question from God being responsible for Adam's sin if He predestined it, to God being responsible to someone for Adam's predestined sin. Shuck and jive folks, edit here, alter there and evade truth at all costs. Calvinism has nothing to offer but side stepping, evasion and shuck and jive.

Now main-line Calvinism accepts as I do that God arranged the fall, so A.W. Pink. But those Calvinists on this board attempt to avoid the obvious time after time.

On a happier note, I did see where several posters actually referred to some of the passages where God addresses how we should pray for the lost. Quite surprising given the usual self serving blarney normally offered concerning Biblical questions.

Here is an offshoot question for those interested in Bible study, should we pray for the salvation of those lost individuals who have rejected Christ, or simply pray that we might help them come to their senses?

 

[Winman]

Like all Calvinists, Luke rewrote the question from God being responsible for Adam's sin if He predestined it, to God being responsible to someone for Adam's predestined sin. Shuck and jive folks, edit here, alter there and evade truth at all costs. Calvinism has nothing to offer but side stepping, evasion and shuck and jive.

Now main-line Calvinism accepts as I do that God arranged the fall, so A.W. Pink. But those Calvinists on this board attempt to avoid the obvious time after time.

On a happier note, I did see where several posters actually referred to some of the passages where God addresses how we should pray for the lost. Quite surprising given the usual self serving blarney normally offered concerning Biblical questions.

Here is an offshoot question for those interested in Bible study, should we pray for the salvation of those lost individuals who have rejected Christ, or simply pray that we might help them come to their senses?

I do not agree with those who teach God arranged the fall. The scriptures say that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

1 Jhn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

There is no evil in God whatsoever, and the devil is not God's hit-man carrying out dirty deeds for him.

God is love and naturally wants to express that love, and so he created people whom he could love, and could love him in return. I believe that God MUST give his creatures free will, as to force them would be immoral, and God cannot do that which is immoral. Unfortunately, this enables sin. The only way sin could be avoided was not to make angels or men at all, but then God would have no one to show his love.

We all know that our children will sin, but no decent parent ever designs that his children will sin. The same with God. God knew men would disobey and sin, and so before the foundation of the world planned to redeem man to himself by his son Jesus Christ.

But God did not plan sin, and God does not need sin as many falsely teach here.

 

[Rippon]

Remonstrance not remonstrant. Remonstrance=protest.

Technically the document of 1610 was called the Remonstrance. The supporters of the teachings of Arminius were known as the Remonstrants.

Remonstrant = to oppose.

 

[steaver]

I do not agree with those who teach God arranged the fall. The scriptures say that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

1 Jhn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

There is no evil in God whatsoever, and the devil is not God's hit-man carrying out dirty deeds for him.

God is love and naturally wants to express that love, and so he created people whom he could love, and could love him in return. I believe that God MUST give his creatures free will, as to force them would be immoral, and God cannot do that which is immoral. Unfortunately, this enables sin. The only way sin could be avoided was not to make angels or men at all, but then God would have no one to show his love.

We all know that our children will sin, but no decent parent ever designs that his children will sin. The same with God. God knew men would disobey and sin, and so before the foundation of the world planned to redeem man to himself by his son Jesus Christ.

But God did not plan sin, and God does not need sin as many falsely teach here.

God set Adam up, call it a test if you will, but God knew Adam would fail if He gave Adam the choice to fail. God already planned for Jesus Christ to redeem Adam before He ever created Adam. Thus, Adam's fall was God's plan all along, yet this does not make God an evil God, for God provided grace for Adam's fall from the very beginning. Yes, God did plan sin that mankind would learn that he is not God, as Lucifer thought he could be, and that Jesus Christ would be glorified before both angels and mankind.

 

[Winman]

God set Adam up, call it a test if you will, but God knew Adam would fail if He gave Adam the choice to fail. God already planned for Jesus Christ to redeem Adam before He ever created Adam. Thus, Adam's fall was God's plan all along, yet this does not make God an evil God, for God provided grace for Adam's fall from the very beginning. Yes, God did plan sin that mankind would learn that he is not God, as Lucifer thought he could be, and that Jesus Christ would be glorified before both angels and mankind.

I disagree. Love requires choice, so God must present Adam with choice, but he did not will that Adam sinned. He did know that Adam would sin, just as we knew our children would sin before bringing them into this world. But no decent parent wills or designs that his children sin. That said, no decent parent would lock his child in a room to prevent him from sinning, but lovingly trusts him to make his own decisions, knowing quite well that at times that child will make poor decisions.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Iconoclast]

There it is again, the same answer you gave previously WITHOUT any explanation or consideration that Jesus/God states that He has PLAEDED with Israel to come to Him.

One does not plead with another to DO something that they are incapable of doing, especially a Holy, Perfect and Just God.

You could at least answer as John McArthur does to all the passages that speak of God's offer to ALL, and God's pleading, and say "I don't know".

I do not see any pleading....I see a statement of fact.
I see you claiming such...not Jesus.

look here;Jesus is reprobating them...the covenant curses of deut..28-33 are coming upon them

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

 

[convicted1]

Now if the Calvinist God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, and told Adam not to eat of it, and allowed Satan to temp Eve, I think it is not too far a stretch to say God arranged the Fall. This avoids the idea that God predestined the Fall, making God and not Adam responsible for his volitional sin.

Blatant straw man of the Reformed/Hardshell view still permeates on here, I see.

God put the Tree of knowledge in the Garden. Adam and Eve at of it, even after God warned them. How's that His fault?

 

[Luke2427]

Like all Calvinists, Luke rewrote the question from God being responsible for Adam's sin if He predestined it, to God being responsible to someone for Adam's predestined sin.

You don't get it. You are only responsible FOR something if you are responsible TO somebody.

A man is responsible for murder because he is responsible to society and God.

1.
answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often followed by to or for ): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
2.
involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.
3.
chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually followed by for ): Termites were responsible for the damage.
4.
having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions.
5.
able to discharge obligations or pay debts.


Word Origin & History

responsible
1590s, "answerable (to another, for something)," from Fr. responsible, from L. responsus, pp. of respondere "to respond" (see respond).

Based upon every ONE of these definitions there is some higher power to place blame on the person responsible. The responsible person is "answerable, accountable, chargeable..." As the origin of the word suggests, to be responsible is to have to respond. To whom must God respond? Who questions Him and demands of him a response???

Do you think you can place blame on God for making a world in which billions would go to hell?

Will you snatch the Almighty from his judgment seat, occupy it yourself, throw him at your feet and declare "YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR SIN AND SUFFERING!!!"

No you will not. Nor will anyone else.

God is not responsible for anything because he is not responsible TO anybody.

So the only question is, "Did God will for a world in which billions would perish?"

And even a small child can deduce that he did since this world exists.

Even in your system you have God WILLING to let billions go to hell for the sake of of this sacred human "free will."

We think God's great glory is a far nobler and grander purpose for which men must perish than man's nonsensical, worthless, puny, unbiblical, mythical "free will."

 

[convicted1]

You don't get it. You are only responsible FOR something if you are responsible TO somebody.

A man is responsible for murder because he is responsible to society and God.




Based upon every ONE of these definitions there is some higher power to place blame on the person responsible.

Do you think you can place blame on God for making a world in which billions would go to hell?

Will you snatch the Almighty from his judgment seat, occupy it yourself, throw him at your feet and declare "YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR SIN AND SUFFERING!!!"

No you will not. Nor will anyone else.

God is not responsible for anything because he is not responsible TO anybody.

So the only question is, "Did God will for a world in which billions would perish?"

And even a small child can deduce that he did since this world exists.

Even in your system you have God WILLING to let billions go to hell for the sake of of this sacred human "free will."

We think God's great glory is a far nobler and grander purpose for which men must perish than man's stupid, worthless, puny, unbiblical "free will."

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

 

[convicted1]

I pray for God to send His people to witness to His sheep...to proclaim the gospel to them in a way that it brings them out from amongst the goats. The goats don't want anything to do with the gospel, His messengers, and most importantly, Him. And they will pay the utmost farthing for it, too.

 

[convicted1]

Love requires choice........

You know, I've heard this statement pretty much my whole life. Now, where does it say this in the bible? I ask this in all sincerity. God chose us from the foundation of the world(Eph. 1:4). Jesus told His disciples He chose them and not vice versa(John 15:16). But I can't find where we chose Him before He drew us.

Adam and Eve were daily in communion with God until they sinned and fell. Then when they heard His voice in the cool of the evening, they ran and hid. They chose to tuck tail and run. Why was that?

 

[Luke2427]

You know, I've heard this statement pretty much my whole life. Now, where does it say this in the bible? I ask this in all sincerity. God chose us from the foundation of the world(Eph. 1:4). Jesus told His disciples He chose them and not vice versa(John 15:16). But I can't find where we chose Him before He drew us.

Adam and Eve were daily in communion with God until they sinned and fell. Then when they heard His voice in the cool of the evening, they ran and hid. They chose to tuck tail and run. Why was that?

The opposite of what Winman claims is true.

The greatest love is such that it renders IMPOTENT the will.

I cannot HELP but love my children. I do not CHOOSE to love them. I cannot WILL to stop loving them.

Some can will themselves to stop loving their children. And what do we say of the love they had? It was not very great love if it can stop.

Most of us love our children so much that our will is gone- we cannot BUT love them. I cannot BUT be ever concerned for their well being. I have no choice in the matter.

But an infinitely greater example is the kind of love that has existed eternally within the Triune Godhead.

God the Father does not have the ability to STOP loving God the Son. To not love God the Son would be the pinnacle of sin and evil. Since God CANNOT choose to do or be evil, his love for that which goodness demands be loved, His Son, cannot BUT be unyielding.

God the Son does not CHOOSE to love God the Father- if by choice you mean the ability exists to either love or not love. He cannot BUT love God the Father. To fail to love God the Father for an INSTANT would be the most grievous of sins. Since God CANNOT sin and Jesus IS God he has no choice BUT to always love God the Father.

The GREATEST love is a million MILES away from "free will."

Deficient love is infected with will.

Great love is void of it.

 

[convicted1]

The opposite of what Winman claims is true.

The greatest love is such that it renders IMPOTENT the will.

I cannot HELP but love my children. I do not CHOOSE to love them. I cannot WILL to stop loving them.

Some can will themselves to stop loving their children. And what do we say of the love they had? It was not very great love if it can stop.

Most of us love our children so much that our will is gone- we cannot BUT love them. I cannot BUT be ever concerned for their well being. I have no choice in the matter.

But an infinitely greater example is the kind of love that has existed eternally within the Triune Godhead.

God the Father does not have the ability to STOP loving God the Son. To not love God the Son would be the pinnacle of sin and evil. Since God CANNOT choose to do or be evil, his love for that which goodness demands be loved, His Son, cannot BUT be unyielding.

God the Son does not CHOOSE to love God the Father- if by choice you mean the ability exists to either love or not love. He cannot BUT love God the Father. To fail to love God the Father for an INSTANT would be the most grievous of sins. Since God CANNOT sin and Jesus IS God he has no choice BUT to always love God the Father.

The GREATEST love is a million MILES away from "free will."

Deficient love is infected with will.

Great love is void of it.

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.....

 

[Rippon]

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.....

Welcome back Lawrence Welk!

 

[convicted1]

Welcome back Lawrence Welk!

Thank you Brother.

I got to missing y'all...and besides, I'd sneak in here as a 'guest' ~1-2 times a week and see what was going on. I actually found some civility here. Now that I'm back, watch it all go to pot... :laugh: