Scriptures Calvinists must deal with, continued...

[Fred's Wife]

You are evading the question. In John 3:16 and in 1John 2:2 if the world doesn't mean all the world and "the sins of the whole world," doesn't mean what it says it means, then how do you know for sure that you are part of that world that it actually defines. If, for example, it is defined as only the geographical area that Christ walked you are left out of that world and doomed to hell. For you were never part of that world. How do you get around that unless that world is for all sinners in all the world of all ages. Do you now understand my question? How can you have any assurance of salvation with a limited definition of "world"? The "world" Christ spoke of may not include you.

My father gave me all those same answers. He was a devout Roman Catholic. I don't believe he was saved. Satan is a great deceiver.

You listen but you do not hear.
I said: "I believe salvation is all of God," but not the way that you define it. I believe Christ died for the sins of the world also, but not the way you define it. So we come to the same conclusion. You need to overhaul your theology.

A statement with no Biblical proof; an opinion bordering on heresy.
God does not give faith to the unregenerate.
God does not give spiritual gifts to the unregenerate.
God does not give the fruit of the spirit to the unregenerate.
There is no Scripture in all the Bible that indicates that he does. This is a man-made doctrine to support and prop-up Calvinism. It is totally unbiblical. You cannot support it, and have not supported it with a single verse of Scripture.

That is written to Christians.
I have believed on Christ. It was I that believed, and as the verse indicates it is I that will suffer. The verse supports my view.

An opinion stated without scriptural support. An unfounded unbiblical opinion.

Read your Bible:

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. (John 3:36)

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:12)

Not true:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (Romans 3:10)
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Romans 3:23)

Who will go to heaven:
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

Not true.
Man in his rebellion against God chooses not to receive Christ:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

Not so. I was just as rebellious and self-righteous until someone finally shared the gospel with me at the age of 20. Before that time I had never heard it before. Once I heard it, I trusted Christ as my Savior. If I had gone on in my darkness without ever hearing the gospel the blood of my eternal destiny would have rested on those two individuals who shared with me the gospel (if they had not shared the gospel when they had the opportunity).
The same is true of us. If God gives you the call to the mission field or even to witness to another individual and you don't his blood will be on your hands.

I was lost and Jesus saved me. I was given a choice and I believed.

I have nothing to boast in except in the glory of my Lord Jesus Christ who made the sacrifice to save me, and did.

I trust I will be one of those that the Lord will say: "Well done thou good and faithful servant." but that won't be in regard to salvation, it will be in regard to service.

Are you as holy as God is holy?
When you get to heaven, and if God were to say to you: "Why should I let you into my heaven," what answer will you give?

Excellent and edifying (to me personally) response, DHK! :thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

Or American Indians, they day Christ died they were instantly condemned. Are we so lost in our studies that we don't understand that who we are, where we are born, and who we will be is all from the MASTER???

I know you are new here...but why would you even make a comment that we are "lazy in our studies"? Why, because we disagree? Comments like that is what muddies the water and puts up walls that lead to fruitless discussion. Please don't get pulled into the mud.

 

[Skandelon]

I know you are new here...but why would you even make a comment that we are "lazy in our studies"? Why, because we disagree? Comments like that is what muddies the water and puts up walls that lead to fruitless discussion. Please don't get pulled into the mud.

:thumbs: Patronizing and or personal comments that even imply that others aren't as smart, educated, spiritual, or biblically knowledgable will only lead us into the mud. If we stick to addressing the topic and the arguments being made we will have a much more edifying and profitable discussion.

 

[Calv1]

I know you are new here...but why would you even make a comment that we are "lazy in our studies"? Why, because we disagree? Comments like that is what muddies the water and puts up walls that lead to fruitless discussion. Please don't get pulled into the mud.

Sorry about that, you are right, I shouldn't have said that.

I do get frustrated when I see people dogmatic about things that it's clear they've never studied, may have read it, but not studied it. I will be more measured with my words in the future.

 

[Skandelon]

I do get frustrated when I see people dogmatic about things that it's clear they've never studied, may have read it, but not studied it. I will be more measured with my words in the future.

You might want to start now. You seem to assume that because someone disagrees with your perspective that they haven't studied it. Did CS Lewis, John Wesley or Adam Clarke not study these matters either? Could it be that some here have studied the issues at hand but have come to a different conclusion than you?

As a Calvinist, who believes in God's sovereignty over the choices of men, you should ask yourself why it is that some believers never become Calvinistic. Has God not granted all his children everything they need to believe the "truth" of Calvinism? If so, why don't we? Are we just not intelligent or knowledgable enough? If so, I guess you have room to boast in your intelligence and ability to understand and accept this knowledge, right? If so, aren't you taking glory from God?

 

[webdog]

Sorry about that, you are right, I shouldn't have said that.

I do get frustrated when I see people dogmatic about things that it's clear they've never studied, may have read it, but not studied it. I will be more measured with my words in the future.

You assume way too much. Talk about frustration. If you want to hear my story some time shoot me a pm...I reject your doctrine not for a lack of study. This is the second time a calvinist has said this to me today and once by a moderator. This amounts to nothing more than a veiled insult and a personal attack. Let me ask you...have you studied your opposition's view?

 

[Calv1]

You might want to start now. You seem to assume that because someone disagrees with your perspective that they haven't studied it. Did CS Lewis, John Wesley or Adam Clarke not study these matters either? Could it be that some here have studied the issues at hand but have come to a different conclusion than you?

As a Calvinist, who believes in God's sovereignty over the choices of men, you should ask yourself why it is that some believers never become Calvinistic. Has God not granted all his children everything they need to believe the "truth" of Calvinism? If so, why don't we? Are we just not intelligent or knowledgable enough? If so, I guess you have room to boast in your intelligence and ability to understand and accept this knowledge, right? If so, aren't you taking glory from God?

OK, to you and Webdog, I said I was sorry, you want to drag this out?

To answer your question, Lewis was a horrible theologian, he rejected Genesis, Job, Jonah all as fiction, and believed the bible contained God's word but was in fact not. I read Clarke all the time, have for years AS I VIEW BOTH SIDES.

I was a Arminian apologist, get it?

Why do you say I'm boosting of my knowledge? Should I lie to you in the interest of humility? I only understand Scripture because God has granted it to me, has NOTHING to be with my mental ability.

If someone comes to me with accusations, I don't take it personal, to me it's a insult to God, just as you would if a Atheist told you God was not great. Like Calvin said, "A dog will bark if his master is attacked, how much more will I if my God is"

 

[Iconoclast]

OK, to you and Webdog, I said I was sorry, you want to drag this out?

To answer your question, Lewis was a horrible theologian, he rejected Genesis, Job, Jonah all as fiction, and believed the bible contained God's word but was in fact not. I read Clarke all the time, have for years AS I VIEW BOTH SIDES.

I was a Arminian apologist, get it?

Why do you say I'm boosting of my knowledge? Should I lie to you in the interest of humility? I only understand Scripture because God has granted it to me, has NOTHING to be with my mental ability.

If someone comes to me with accusations, I don't take it personal, to me it's a insult to God, just as you would if a Atheist told you God was not great. Like Calvin said, "A dog will bark if his master is attacked, how much more will I if my God is"

Nice post brother....welcome to the BB ,by the way.God has blessed you in your studies and several of us enjoy that blessing.
Others cannot seem to enter into the same joy:laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

OK, to you and Webdog, I said I was sorry, you want to drag this out?

Your apology was followed by an additional patronizing remark ("I do get frustrated when I see people dogmatic about things that it's clear they've never studied") We simply called you on it. We are not attempting to "drag it out," just correct you when you insult us and others.

To answer your question, Lewis was a horrible theologian, he rejected Genesis, Job, Jonah all as fiction, and believed the bible contained God's word but was in fact not. I read Clarke all the time, have for years AS I VIEW BOTH SIDES.

The point was just to show you that there are very intelligent and well studied individuals who do not share your particular Calvinistic views. That point was made but not rebutted.

I was a Arminian apologist, get it?

Wonderful, then I'm sure you will be a great addition to the board. You must be very knowledgable on the subject at hand. May I ask how long you have been a Calvinists and where we might read some of your works in defense of Arminianism?

Why do you say I'm boosting of my knowledge?

I didn't say you were boasting [sic] of your knowledge. I asked you a series of questions as to why you, a believer in Christ, have accepted the Calvinistic "truth" while men like Clarke and myself have rejected these teachings? Is it because God hasn't given me something that he gave to you, or are you just smarter or better in some way? I think you answer that question when you write:

I only understand Scripture because God has granted it to me, has NOTHING to be with my mental ability.

So, do you believe God didn't grant me and Adam Clarke the "mental ability" to accept the "truth" of Calvinism? If not, why? What sovereign purpose might God have in not granting all his children the ability to accept these "truths?"

If someone comes to me with accusations, I don't take it personal, to me it's a insult to God

All the more reason not to insult others by implying they are "lazy" or have "not studied" these issues.

 

[Calv1]

Your apology was followed by an additional patronizing remark ("I do get frustrated when I see people dogmatic about things that it's clear they've never studied") We simply called you on it. We are not attempting to "drag it out," just correct you when you insult us and others.

The point was just to show you that there are very intelligent and well studied individuals who do not share your particular Calvinistic views. That point was made but not rebutted.

Calv1: Where? Beside, intelligence has nothing to do with it.

Wonderful, then I'm sure you will be a great addition to the board. You must be very knowledgable on the subject at hand. May I ask how long you have been a Calvinists and where we might read some of your works in defense of Arminianism?

Calv1: You want me to give you my credentials? Why? So you can turn around and say I'm bragging? Not going for it.

I didn't say you were boasting [sic] of your knowledge. I asked you a series of questions as to why you, a believer in Christ, have accepted the Calvinistic "truth" while men like Clarke and myself have rejected these teachings?

Calv1: God doesn't grant all the same amount of Grace. Perhaps that's why you are here, to learn.

Is it because God hasn't given me something that he gave to you, or are you just smarter or better in some way? I think you answer that question when you write:
So, do you believe God didn't grant me and Adam Clarke the "mental ability" to accept the "truth" of Calvinism? If not, why? What sovereign purpose might God have in not granting all his children the ability to accept these "truths?"

Calv1: You are seriously asking me why God has not Soveriengly given you the ability to read scripture?

All the more reason not to insult others by implying they are "lazy" or have "not studied" these issues.

Calv1: Since you have not forgiven me when I said I am sorry, and are dragging it out, it is clear you just wish to argue. You can stop writing me. I have no desire nor will I argue with anyone, especially a brother.

 

[webdog]

Calv1: Since you have not forgiven me when I said I am sorry, and are dragging it out, it is clear you just wish to argue. You can stop writing me. I have no desire nor will I argue with anyone, especially a brother.

Wow. Baseless accusations, trolling comments....all in a day. Not exactly the way to get your feet wet. Your lack of reasonable answers to Skan's questions leads me to believe maybe you are not as eager to discuss issues, learn and grow as you come off, but as a TULIP prosylyte.

Not interested. Enough of those types already :wavey:

 

[Calv1]

Nice post brother....welcome to the BB ,by the way.God has blessed you in your studies and several of us enjoy that blessing.
Others cannot seem to enter into the same joy:laugh:

Thanks, and nice to meet you. Seems I'm already labeled with terms I've never heard. Oh well!!!!!

 

[Iconoclast]

AIC,
[QUOTE
I dont have the time to post them all. Every time that you have said that there is no saving revelation for the millions who lived their entire lifetime outside of the verbal or written gosple, you are clearly adovocating that they are simply damned to hell, because of location.

If thats not "tough luck for them"...I'd like to know what is.

][/QUOTE]

God has declared that His wrath is revealed from heaven .

I did not make this up,you post as if the bible does not say this.The scripture
indicates all are perishing unless the gospel sets them free.
It looks as if you cannot process this.We see what the real problem is right here;

God is God, and at *specific times* He choose's..for His own reasons..to make exceptions to the norm. He has that right. There are other instances like that, and I trust God completly, that for whatever reason, it was the righteous thing to do.

That is completely different than the consistant, overwhelming inequity and total ungodly ramifications that exist in hard core calvinism.

You put yourself in a position of calling the truth of God...[ungodly ramifications] actually it is your failure to accurately understand the teaching before being critical of it.
When the thread is about "scriptures" calvinists have to deal with...we see the calvinist does indeed deal with them. We also learn that when the arminian tries to do the same he cannot...as we see here.
No need to push a verse to say what it does not have to as you invent a whole theology that opposes the teaching of scripture

 

[Jerome]

"the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic. I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case." —John Piper

 

[Skandelon]

Calv1: Where?

Where are there well studied and intelligent non-Calvinists or where did I make that point?

Beside, intelligence has nothing to do with it

.
I said "studied intelligent," meaning they are smart and have studied the issues, which is a rebuttal to your implication that those who disagree with Calvinism lack knowledge and have not studied.

Calv1: You want me to give you my credentials? Why? So you can turn around and say I'm bragging? Not going for it.

I didn't ask for credentials. You told us you were an "Arminian apologist" and I simply asked how long ago you changed to become a Calvinist and if you had any published works we might be able to read. Apologists typically write articles, papers or maybe blogs that can give us more insight on their views. I was never intending to accuse you of bragging, I was only turning your accusations of our synergistic system as being "boast worthy" onto you, because either you become a Calvinistic "synergistically" or God is responsible for all non-Calvinistic believers.

Calv1: God doesn't grant all the same amount of Grace. Perhaps that's why you are here, to learn.

Maybe. When I joined this board in 2003 I was a Calvinist, now I'm not. I've learned a lot and probably have much more to learn.

So, did Adam Clarke, for example, not receive the grace to accept the "truth" of Calvinism? If not, why do you suppose God wouldn't grant his child this precious knowledge of the doctrines of grace?

Calv1: Since you have not forgiven me when I said I am sorry, and are dragging it out, it is clear you just wish to argue. You can stop writing me. I have no desire nor will I argue with anyone, especially a brother.

Brother, you misinterpret me. I will gladly accept a sincere apology, but when you apologize and then continue to insult the very next sentence by implying that those who disagree with you have not studied then we are going to correct you. I think that is a reasonable response. This is a debate forum and a place to post apposing views regarding doctrinal matters. We can do that in a respectful and Christlike manner. When things get personal (i.e. you are unable to read scripture or you are too lazy to study) then the discussion is drug into the mud.

I welcome respectful arguments. But I will rebuke and correct personal, demeaning or patronizing attacks. I hope you understand. We can move on now and talk about the topic at hand.

Please practice using your quote feature so people can respond to your posts more easily. You will get it. It just takes a little practice.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks, and nice to meet you. Seems I'm already labeled with terms I've never heard. Oh well!!!!!

Oh yes....if you read through the posts you will notice that a good scriptural discussion gets derailed into a humanistic philosophical one.We would profit more if we stayed with the verses.
You have handled your first episode of " arminians gone wild" fairly well cal 1:thumbs:
To be fair sometimes we get pulled into it more than we should,and do similar posts out of frustration.
Cal 1...stay in the word and truth and seek to edify....the sheep will always welcome the truth of the good shepherd.jn10:26-27

 

[webdog]

Oh yes....if you read through the posts you will notice that a good scriptural discussion gets derailed into a humanistic philosophical one.We would profit more if we stayed with the verses.
You have handled your first episode of " arminians gone wild" fairly well cal 1:thumbs:
To be fair sometimes we get pulled into it more than we should,and do similar posts out of frustration.
Cal 1...stay in the word and truth and seek to edify....the sheep will always welcome the truth of the good shepherd.jn10:26-27

Where are these arminians? Were you reading the same posts the rest of were?

 

[Iconoclast]

"the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic. I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case." —John Piper

Hello Jerome,
I noticed you have posted this several times....and although
I am not a big Piper fan....but there is a degree of truth in this post.

Calvinism is the truth of God systematized.Some of the truths are difficult.
Because of this...without prayer,and self examination a believer who holds these truths may drift into sinful and rough responses from time to time.

And yet, the other side of the truth is that these same truths are humbling to the flesh and once viewed as they are the truth of God there is a desire to help others see their need of the saving work of The Lord Jesus Christ.
To attempt to participate on a message board like this and see many disparage the truth of God is dis-heartening sometimes. We could be building up each other more. Sometimes there is a desire to question to learn...other times it is just an attack for attacks sake.
I would urge those on the attack to take care not to be found fighting against God......like Saul killing christians. You wind up opposing yourself.

 

[Iconoclast]

Where are these arminians? Were you reading the same posts the rest of were?

Hello WD.
Nobody wants to be labelled when a discussion does not go well for their position,:smilewinkgrin:
In your case....[if you don't mind me saying....lol...sometimes you do mind]
I think your theology is more of a mix, or hybrid so I can see why you post what you do sometimes.Because of this, I like some of your thoughts sometimes in your posts, and sometimes I am provoked, confused , or annoyed. Although at this time we do not agree too often,I try to glean some of your better thoughts and come back at you from time to time.
[QUOTE Were you reading the same posts the rest of were?][/QUOTE]

Sometimes when the posts...decline...so to speak, I find I do not follow them as close,as much as I try to figure out the motivation of the one posting.
Then I try and make a determination, is the person;
1] sincere

2] trying to learn

3] trying to help

4]agenda driven

5]trying to attack personally
trying to attack doctrinaly
6] a wolf in sheeps clothing

7]sincerely mistaken
sincerely mis-informed
8]delibrately perverse

9] open to correction

10]maybe struggling with mental or emotional problems

It affects the type of response given. Does this make sense WD?How do you process it WD?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast..

I said....

Every time that you have said that there is no saving revelation for the millions who lived their entire lifetime outside of the verbal or written gosple, you are clearly adovocating that they are simply damned to hell, because of location.

If thats not "tough luck for them"...I'd like to know what is.

You responded...

I did not make this up,you post as if the bible does not say this.The scripture
indicates all are perishing unless the gospel sets them free.
It looks as if you cannot process this.

When have I ever said that anything but the gospel sets men free? I have never denied that truth

I posted this...

God is God, and at *specific times* He choose's..for His own reasons..to make exceptions to the norm. He has that right. There are other instances like that, and I trust God completly, that for whatever reason, it was the righteous thing to do.

That is completely different than the consistant, overwhelming inequity and total ungodly ramifications that exist in hard core calvinism.

And you responded...

You put yourself in a position of calling the truth of God...[ungodly ramifications][

Thats your opinion. I believe that I am articulating the great errors of Calvinism...a severly damaging false view of the gosple.

actually it is your failure to accurately understand the teaching before being critical of it.
When the thread is about "scriptures" calvinists have to deal with...we see the calvinist does indeed deal with them. We also learn that when the arminian tries to do the same he cannot...as we see here.

Thats a complete falsehood. A flat out falsehood. Our side of this is every bit as scripturally sound, and actually more so, imo, then the Calvinist side.

You SHOULD know this.

No need to push a verse to say what it does not have to as you invent a whole theology that opposes the teaching of scripture

Completely, utterly false.