The act of receiving

Romans 4 is in my opinion one of the most difficult chapters of the New Testament. I believe one of the keys to understanding it is verse 1, where it says Abraham had found something "as pertains to flesh" (Gr. kata sarka). I would ask and at the same times challenge the debaters; What is meant by the expression "as pertains to flesh" in verse 1 of Rom. 4 ?

Harald

 

DT,

Unfortunatley for you, while I am sure you are sincere in this, you are neverthless wrong, as I pointed out and argued logically.
Beside that, your mere assertion to the contrary is of little value. You may believe it, but that has no impact on the facts.

It is however the very line of reasoning you use, applied conversely. I agree that its bunk, but if it is so in this case then it is also so in the one you put forward.

So obedience was NOT intended? Well!

I can as easily counter that the General Call is given to demonstrate that none of us can respond to God without an efectual call. (That was the result intended).

You're making up the satndard as you go along just so you can accuse God of being insincere.

Then why is it that the Call is insicere unless some are saved?

God provided the propitiation for sins in Christ. I don't see how you can say that a genuine opportunity has NOT been offered. The General Call goes out to the whole world. I don't see how you can claim that people cannot respond to it.

But really I think what you mean by genuine and sincere is that people must be able to respond to it POSITIVELY. They must have the ability to accept the call if it is to be a genuine or a sincere call.

But that puts the blame on God for the fact that no one can so respond. It is your little problem of responsibility requiring ability repackaged. It is an assumption which you carry that has already been refuted.

 

Why would I believe that Salvation is not for everyone when Jesus says, "whosoever believeth"?

You seem to be saying that there are groups and categories of people for whom salvation cannot be given despite the universal invitation given by Jesus. What support do you have for such thought?

I agree that and have oft said that the way to salvation is narrow and that the gate to heaven is likewise narrow but the road to destruction is broad and many there are that go that way. None of them can claim they were not invited to go on the narrow way!

That case has been presented but has not been proven. There is nothing conclusive in that case, while there is much against it.

If you want to believe that only the elect will be saved, then you are simply closing your mind to the truth.

 

Doubting Thomas,

I appreciate at least your last two posts. They were well though through and gave me the feeling that you were not trying to argue just to prove a point. I think this is commendable.

Regards . . .

 

YOU are the one who claims that people cannot respond to the GENERAL call. You say that man can only respond to the EFFECTUAL call which is not to the whole world but only to the "elect". You're starting to confuse your two "calls".
(At least it SOUNDS LIKE you agree that propitiation was made for the WHOLE WORLD. Most Calvinists I've read would disagree and restrict that propitiation for the ELECT only.)

Wrong--when moved by the Holy Spirit, man CAN respond. MAN is to blame if he does NOT respond when so moved by God. In YOUR scheme God desires ALL to be saved, commands ALL to repent, and yet witholds the means by which they can do so from all but the elect. In the Bible, God provides that means to ALL through the gracious drawing and convicting work of the Holy Spirit. Thus Divinely enabled, man can receive or reject. Likewise, God commands men to be "perfect" and then provides the means by which that can be accomplished--faith in Christ, which He offers to ALL.

Do we REALLY have to go through all of that again???? UGHH!!!

Refuted in YOUR mind, perhaps. I keep responding that Scripture teaches man DOES have the ability to choose because he DOES choose good at times. (Thus, since he has the ABILITY to choose good, he is held RESPONSIBLE for when he chooses its opposite--evil.) You respond by saying "Well Calvinism doesn't deny that! Calvinism teaches that man sometimes does choose to do good. You 'misunderstand' Calvinism! blah blah blah--It's that man obviously doesn't have the 'EQUAL' ability to choose good...yada, yada, yada..." and the beat goes on

Frankly this exchange has grown tiresome. It is obvious that you have trouble thinking outside your restrictive Calvinistic categories.

 

Thanks, Ray. I feel, though, that I'm just wasting my time here.
I do appreciate the kind words however.
God Bless.

 

With all talk about "responsibility" show me the word from Strong's dictionary. You won't find it in the Bible. The word of God teaches man must make account to God, he is accountable for his doings and neglects. That is your "responsibility". That is also how Webster's defines responsibility, as accountability. What most religionists mean with "responsibility" is duty repentance and "duty faith unto salvation", which is damnable heresy. The word of God does not teach duty faith unto salvation or duty repentance dito. You won't find it in the Holy Scriptures. It is a figment of depraved minds. Man is duty bound to keep the law of God and under curse for breaking it, eternal death being the wages of sin, transgression of the law. The man having done all the things of the law shall live by virtue of them. Only Christ did so, and lives forevermore, and all those that were placed in Him in the eternal covenant by an immutable divine decree. Not "by faith", as most religious professors would have it.

Harald

 

Umm, Harald, if you had read some of my earlier posts on this thread you would have known that I basically defined RESPONSIBILITY as being the same as "accountability". (In fact I quoted Webster's definition!) You can therefore spare me the whole "damnable heresy" talk.

Regards...

(By the way, you won't see the phrases "Total Depravity", "Unconditional Election", "Limited Atonement", "Irresistible Grace", or "Effectual Call" in the Bible either. I've said my peace.)

 

Doubting Thomas. I am sorry if you took my words as directed at your statement previous to mine. It was not. I had also not read what you said you had stated re responsibility and accountability. I believe you did just what you said, and your defining responsibility as accountability to God was good. I said what I said as a general statement at the much use of "responsibility" by debaters here in general, which word has flashed before my eyes when browsing the threads. Usually when I address someone specific I begin with the name or pseudonym they use, like with you right now.

As for the terms you mentioned at the end you're right they do not occur in the Bible as such, but the concepts do, but in other words and terms speaking of the same things. Yet I am no "Calvinist" nor do I feel any obligation to defend or promote "Calvinism" or the "Reformed faith". I am much critical of most things going on in so called Calvinistic circles. There is probably more self-exalting carnality among so called Calvinists than among so called Arminians, which BTW seldom bother to label themselves by that epithet.

The way some on this forum keep on using "responsibility" all the time it seems to me they do not think of it in terms of accountability to God for one's actions and neglects etc. It seems to me they conceive of it as some human duty and ability to believe in Christ "savingly" or to repent "savingly" toward God. As if they perceive humans in general are able to make up for their perpetual law-breaking from the womb by one act of "trust in Christ as personal Saviour" or a "decision for Christ". I have not yet read your posts so carefully so I cannot tell if you think in such manner. But such a notion stinks of the old heresy of neonomianism, and is akin to the heresy of duty faith and duty repentance. The latter two became well know via the heretic Andrew Fuller in the latter part of the 18th century. Fuller was a Baptist of the Particular Baptists in England.

Harald

 

Christ's proclamation to sinners in Johhn 3:16 is this. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.'

Then there is human life in which to can choose Christ.

And then God said in Revlation 20:l5 'And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.'

In between these events---- the call to believe and the summons to judgment is what we call responsibility. Does anyone still need a definition of 'responsibility?'

Notice in both verses the Gospel has been offered in perfect sincerity by the Lord God and not to a predestined elect but to every human being. This will be what makes human beings without excuse when they stand before Almighty God.

 

Yelsew,

Like I said, unless you believe that everyone is saved, then you also believe that salvation is not for everyone. Its that simple. You admit this, and yet you say you can say that salvation is for everyone. I can say the same thig fo the same reason.

DT,

I'm not the one who is confused. I am saying that the general call, which is universal, is genuine and sincere since God WOULD revceive anyone who repsonded to it. Our capacity to respond is immaterial to God's sincerity in making the offer.

I again point ut that you are bordering pn blasphemy in suggesting that God is NOT sincere in this general call. God is JUST as sincere in this cal as he is in saying he will judge for failure to uphold the whole Law even though He knows we can't do that.

And of course Christ is the poritiationfor the sins fo the world. No one denies the sufficiency of the atoning work of Christ.

Right, In the effectual Call.

But in the effectual call man has no such desire.

It is only in the general call that man wants to resist, going exactly according to his fallen nature.

Wrong. Jesus is the means by which all can be saved. That is given for all. You don't even undertsand the "scheme" (which is not mine but Scripture's). In the Bible, those whom God calls, come to Him, and He loses none of them.

Saving faith is not available to al. It is universally required, not universally available.

Only if you continue to labour under this false and refuted idea of yours.

Even arminians here have admitted that we are indeed requirted to uphold the whole Law though unable to do so. It is not merely in my mind.

The isue has NEVER been whether man can choose.
Why do you have a problem dealing wuith what Calvanism teaches? You don't seem to like that I don;t deny what Calvanism teaches. Is that because you would rather that Calvanism DID teache somethinbg other than it does in those areas? Probably. Such a straw man would be easier top deal with. Sorry I can't accomodate you in that.

If you can't deal with acxtual calvanism that's your problem.

 

I can't deal with "acxtual(sic) calvanism(sic)" because those defending "acxtual(sic) calvanism(sic)" are circumlocutory in their arguments and definition of what "acxtual(sic) calvanism(sic)" is.

You stick with "acxtual(sic) calvanism(sic)", which is the philosophy of man, and I'll stick with Biblical truth.

[ February 16, 2003, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

 

I hope you are not poking fun at Bible-belted's...ahem....rather unique....what shall I call it?......keyboarding style. It would be a shame if you let something superficial like that keep you from seeing the depth of his posts.

You say calvinists are "circumlatory" in their arguments and definitions. Would you care to explain or give examples? (I couldn't find that word in my dictionary.)

 

DT

Ah yes, when you have no actual answer, resort to pettiness.

Look guy, if you can't deal with the actual biblical teachings then say so. If you can, then do so.

Belittling people, professing that calvanism is a philosophy of man (even though its biblcial foundations have been more than adequately documented and never satisfactorily refuted)...

If you think you've glorified God in that post then leave it as it is. I encourage you to think it through and edit accordingly.

 

Calvinism is not divinely inspired, it is in truth the teachings of a man concerning the teachings of scripture in exactly the same manner as Armenianism. Neither of which has the divinity market cornered. They are both small factions of Christianity, and neither holds true to Christianity.

So if you are willing to align yourself with either of those MEN then you deserve belittling! And Paul the Apostle does the belittling!

 

Calvinism is not divinely inspired, it is in truth the teachings of a man concerning the teachings of scripture in exactly the same manner as Armenianism. Neither of which has the divinity market cornered. They are both small factions of Christianity, and neither holds true to Christianity.

So if you are willing to align yourself with either of those MEN then you deserve belittling! And Paul the Apostle does the belittling! </font>[/QUOTE]Yelsew,

Calvanism is not a teahing of man in the way DT meant that phrase. And you know that. Your equivocation is dishonest. (And if you knew anything about calvanism you'd know that even Calvin was not a full fledged Calvanist. However his teaching IS representative of historic Christianity as taught in the Bible.)

I have NEVER suggested that ANY MAN should be followed save Christ our God. Nor have I EVER suggested that ANY sytem of theology is divinely inspired. Such is a deliberate misrepresentation, and is deceptive as a prtrayal of my position.

Your behaviour is reprehensible, in that you cheer on someone sinning (and Paul has something to say about that!), and irresponsible, in that cheer him on based on a lie.

You should be reprimanded by the moderators, if not banned, as you've been warned about such behaviour.

 

Bible Belted,
If you think that should happen then file a formal complaint against me. Let's have a review of your complaint and see who should be and who should not be chastised or even expelled from the forum.


What you have done here is thrown down the gauntlet expecting me to respond in kind to your devious trickery. If you wish to debate what I've posted you are most welcome to do so. If not, don't revert pettyness.

By the way, if you can prove that any of what I post is untrue, please do so!

 

These threads get read by moderators. soon or late. I am confident there will be a reaction.

There is no trickery here Yelsew. Review the facts. It is not I who has cheered on a person in belittling another. It is not I who has outright lied by attributing a belief to another that I know that other does not hold. It is not I who refuses to deal with the stated position of another poster.

It is you who do these things. Proof? I defy you to produce a single post where I have ever said that Calvanism is inspired or that any system is. I defy you to produce a single post that has me saying that any manother than Christ our God should be followed. The very fact that no such post exists is the indictment. That is the proof.