The conflicted Calvinist

[Luke2427]

You have alluded to Romans 9 in this post, Brother Jonathan, so let me expound on it, just a wee bit.


In verse 21, Apostle Paul wrote this:
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Here he is distinguishing between the Jews(vessel unto honour) and the Gentiles(vessel unto dishonour).

Now, in the following verses, Apostle Paul wrot this:
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

We, the Gentiles, were the vessels fitted to destruction, but He was longsuffering with us......2 Peter 3:9 ring a bell?


Then I will finish this off with what Apostle Paul wrote here:
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.


So to say that the vessels unto honour and dishonour are the elect and non-elect isn't correct. Apostle Paul was speaking of the Jews and Gentiles, and not the elect vs. non-elect.

Jeremiah 18 goes right along with this subject as well.

So, let me get this straight.

You see in these passages a God who chooses to save whole NATIONS and chooses for hundreds of generations NOT to bring salvation to other WHOLE NATIONS and you think that means that God would NEVER elect individuals and pass over other individuals?

Does that make sense to you?

The God who lets entire nations perish for hundreds of generations would never pass over a single individual?????

 

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation

Hello HOS.

I don't think even you truly BELIEVE (deep down) that that is what Win truly does...he doesn't merely "MAKE-UP" things as he goes. Even if he is mistaken or wrong or simply un-informed...that doesn't mean he "makes-up" his definitions....That is simply not fair.

Let's discuss him.He does indeed make things up, just look at how he abuses scripture after scripture.DHK tried to reason with him concerning his false ideas on ECCL7:29. He remains unteachable.
Sometimes he cuts and pastes from false sites....but he says he just says what he feels he sees in scripture.
I do not think he comprehends well when he reads.One thing I notice is he seems to want to be disruptive.

It was previously proven that "THE CHURCH"...........simply has NOT "historically" believed what you claim it has believed...and yet you insist upon it...shall I reference you again to the EARLIEST Baptist Confession...........Written by Thomas Helwys...which is distictly and un-equivocally Arminian in it's Theology??

He fought for what he believed in his time.I do not pick fights with dead saints.Some of what he believed I also believe.However,

After breaking with John Smyth in 1610, Thomas Helwys wrote
A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland
in 1611. Recognized by the majority of Baptist scholars as the first true English Baptist confession of the faith,the purpose of A Declaration of Faith
was to differentiate the beliefs of Helwy’s congregation from that of Smyth’s. The confession contains twenty seven articles.
Despite their separation, the confession illustrates Smyth’s and the Mennonites’ influence on Helwys’s doctrine in the denial of limited atonement and the ability for a Christian to fall from grace.

Anyone who denies the Covenant nature of the Atonement,and believes you can fall from grace does not understand salvation properly.I like that he tried to make a biblical confession of faith as he and others served under difficult circumstances.

Personally....I believe the Apostles were the first Reformed Baptists as the early church was already struggling to stay in the truth.I believe Jesus teaching, with the apostolic writing our the first confession of faith.Eph2:20

We have a new BB member whose avatar is "Thomas Helwys"....however, I would be more than happy to introduce you to the references of the oldest Baptist Confession extant which is unequivocally NOT Calvinist...but, Arminian.

God brought reformation to His church because the church was floundering and infected with arminian error.The reformers not only reformed from the RC church....but had to bring reformation to anabaptist errors...see John Knox against anabaptist errors.

Shall you be publically dis-proven as historically ignorant again????

You can allege what you want but the view I hold of the CHURCH is bible based , not based on the historical record. My contention would be that many were not actually in the church...but God is their Judge.

http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Thomas Helwys (Baptist and Arminian).pdf
The "CHURCH'S HISTORICAL FAITH"...as you like to say it, is in NO WAY Calvinist...Unless, by "CHURCH"...you do not in fact mean the "Baptist" "historical" faith....

Correct...:thumbs:some were in despite their error,by God's mercy.:wavey:

5. That before the Foundation of the World GOD Predestinated that all that believe in him shall-be saved (Ephesians 1:4, 12; Mark 16:16) and all that do not believe will be damned (Mark 16:16) all which he knew before (Romans 8:29). And this is the Election and reprobation spoken of in the Scriptures, concerning salvation, and condemnation, and that GOD has not Predestinated men to be wicked, and so to be damned, but that men being wicked will be damned,

:thumbs:

As I recall, you've been accused of being no more a "Baptist" than the man in the moon before...no?? Your passion for the force of authority of magisterial powers is too obvious for many here who believe in freedom of thought.
You are an "authoritarian" Icon, not a "Baptist"...you love the "authority" of a monolithic decretal "Church"...That is NOT "Baptist" Theology..

.

This is correct in a sense-All authority has been given to Jesus..MT28
He is building His church.I am a living stone in that church.I have come to the heavenly Zion and Jerusalem.

You are not a Baptist Icon...never were...you are Presbyterian with strongly non-paedo-baptist convictions.
"Baptists" don't believe that this entity which you call "THE" Church...even necessarily exists....
So, they can't (by definition) "historically believe" anything...but you aren't a Baptist...you are an authoritarian. You are an "Iconoclast"...You are not a Baptist.

I am a Reformed Baptist in that I will go for scriptural truth wherever it is found.I have more in common with confessional Presbyterians than non confessional baptists.That is true.Ignorance parading as "baptist" does not appeal to me.
The Presbyterian model is biblical but mistaken in a couple of areas.That is another separate discussion.

Why are they "dubious"?......Are they "dubious" only because they are decidedly and admittedly non-Calvinist?........

Many of his posts are novelties, many are blasphemous statements.I do not believe the Spirit of God has believers declare such statements about the Godhead.

Fine....if EVERY reference from a site which is confessionally "anti-Calvinist"...is to be ignored...than so shall every reference from founders.org no??? Sound fair to you?

Cals respond to the posted links...non cals cannot biblically respond, so they ignore the links.

Win has not claimed or decried persecution...he has yet again exhaustively and adequately and clearly explained his position and he has complained little or NONE about how people treat him......

He has done so several times....he gives a list every couple of months where he lists names he is called...just ask him...he will list them for you,,,in fact he has done so recently...look at his recent posts.

My advice to you:
Wait until you can actually quote Winman claiming his "persecution" before you falsely accuse a brother again...

Look up his posts...it is not false,but accurate.:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

DING DING DING!!!!

But what you are posting is properly exegeted SCRIPTURE......... Our Calvinist Brethren WILL NOT engage your VERY concise exegesis of Scripture.. They will default to your mis-understanding of the "HISTORICAL FAITH".

Evidently you and Willis do not understand rom9:thumbsup:

It is not a contrast of jew/gentile....but rather jew/jew rom9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

 

[Luke2427]

Well you know if what you said is true you would think I would have known that. Still being regenerated is being saved and I know when it happened.
MB

This proves my point.

People erroneously mix terms.

Regeneration leads to salvation. It is essential to salvation. But it is no more ITSELF salvation than a cup of water is hydration.

A cup of water makes hydration POSSIBLE. Without it hydration is impossible. But the cup of water ITSELF is not to be confused with hydration.

I may even speak poetically of this cup of water by saying, "I hold in my hand my own quenched thirst." But I say it, hopefully, in the presence of people intelligent enough to know that it is not ACTUALLY quenched thirst. It is that which makes quenched thirst possible.

Regeneration is NOT, NOT, NOT a synonym for salvation.

It is poor hermeneutics that leads one to mix terms that have their own meaning as if they all mean the same thing.

 

[Skandelon]

How are they incompatible?

I have no idea what you mean?

God brings all things to pass- most of them in this world by means.

Is Satan not under the full control of God at all times?

And yet you just stated, "It simply does not follow that the Creator, because he has ordained all that comes to pass, HAS TO BE THE ONE WHO IS ACTUALLY DOING EVERYTHING.

Which is it? Is Satan doing it or is God, or do you think they are one in the same considering that God apparently has "full control" of Satan, His evil puppet?

You know what, don't bother...I'm tired of talking to someone who believes God and Satan are controlled by the same will and thus are the same person. Sorry if that sounds rude, harsh or whatever...its just what it is and I'm done with it.

You get the last word...good bye. :wavey:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Evidently you and Willis do not understand rom9:thumbsup:

We do understand it.

It is not a contrast of jew/gentile....but rather jew/jew rom9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

That is half-right....It isn't "either" a Jew/Gentile contrast "or" a Jew/Jew contrast...but BOTH and even more Icon.

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

That is correct as far as it goes of course...But you speak as though the entirety of Paul's treatise is summed up in those verses...It is FAR more than that. Paul's whole argument doesn't even end until chapter 12, but when you get down to vss 15-26 there is a marked shift in focus. And it has nothing to do with personal salvation but God's use of Gentile National powers to perform his will.

You are reading that chapter as though it is individuals alone about whom Paul is speaking (one Jew individual vs. one Jew individual vs. another). This is not so. It is there in vs 15-17 where most of the Calvinistic confusion lies: You are liable to believe that Paul is speaking about individuals and their personal salvation. He isn't. Pharaoh was NEVER invoked by Paul to explain individual salvation. He is invoked to demonstrate how God used Earthly powers to accomplish his will...and that will being...to call individuals.

Pharaoh is NOT an example of an un-saved or non-elect individual vs. a saved one. Paul does indeed make some Jew/Jew contrasts....but he also makes entire Nation-State contrasts as well.

 

[convicted1]

So, let me get this straight.

You see in these passages a God who chooses to save whole NATIONS and chooses for hundreds of generations NOT to bring salvation to other WHOLE NATIONS and you think that means that God would NEVER elect individuals and pass over other individuals?

Does that make sense to you?

The God who lets entire nations perish for hundreds of generations would never pass over a single individual?????

Listen, what I showed was the corporate election view. God, in the OT days, chose Israel as a whole, yet only a subset was saved. Now, those who were saved, did so because they chose to believe what God was telling them to do through Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, et al. The lamb or goat(an OT type of Christ) sacrificed in Exodus 12, was for Israel as a whole entity(corporate election), yet many of them perished due to unbelief. In Leviticus 16, Aaron laid both his hands on a live male goat(another type of OT Christ), confessed all of Israel's sins upon the male goat, and then the goat was led out into the wilderness by the hands of a fit man(Lev. 16:20-21). Again, here's another showing of corporate election.


In Hebrews 3, the writer stated that those who died and didn't enter into the rest for the children of God, did so, not for the lack of an atonement, but a lack of belief. So it shows you that the lamb/goat atonement in Exodus and the confession over a male goat(scapegoat) in Leviticus 16, was larger than the # of those who actually received it. The atonement was for all of Israel, but only those who believed, received it. The same rings true today. Jesus' atonement was for every single person who ever lived, or are living now, and those who come along later, and it left no one out. But, only those who chose/choose to believe, will reap the benefits of His atoning work.

 

[convicted1]

Evidently you and Willis do not understand rom9:thumbsup:

Oh we understand it quite well, I am afraid. We just don't need the likes of Calvin, Beza, MacArthur, Piper, Spurgeon, et al to lead us by the hand.

It is not a contrast of jew/gentile....but rather jew/jew rom9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

It is not a contrast of Jew/Gentile, but an allegory of both. It isn't an either/or, but and.

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Two wonderful verses, Brother. I love them. You've ripped them to shreds, but I still love'em. Isaac was of God's promise to Abraham. Then Isac had a son named Jacob. Later, God changed Jacob's name to Israel. Sound familiar? OT Israel was a type of the NT church. The promises are for the church, which is correct. But one must be in the Church to get the promises. When we are placed in the Church(the Lord's body), we then reap the benefits/promises.

The predestination/election view you take has man at the center of it. Read Isaiah 42, and then John 15, and you'll see that election revolves around Christ being predestinated/elected to accomplish God's will. When we are saved, and placed in Him, we then are grafted into His election/predestination, and not before. Your view is the view which actually elevates man's status before God, and not ours.

 

[Iconoclast]

Willis,

When we are saved, and placed in Him, we then are grafted into His election/predestination, and not before.

Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

I would say this was before....before creation!

Isaac was of God's promise to Abraham

so were we Willis=8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hos,

You are liable to believe that Paul is speaking about individuals and their personal salvation. He isn't.

You do not get any more individual then twins in a womb-

1 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

 

[convicted1]

Willis,



Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

I would say this was before....before creation!



so were we Willis 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Hallelujah, I agree with this 100%!! :godisgood::jesus::godisgood::jesus:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Iconoclast
Let's discuss him.He does indeed make things up, just look at how he abuses scripture after scripture.

I do not accept this premise at all. He does not "abuse" Scripture after Scripture. While I think he is sometimes mistaken on some exegesis (we all are sometimes) he doesn't "abuse" Scripture in the least. If so, I have rarely if ever seen a Calvinist demonstrate so. Sure, I've seen many a Calvinist argue with him, but not always convincingly so. Truth be told, sometimes, what you perceive to be a Calvinist "setting the record straight" or "correcting" Winman, I often see as an argument where Win quite frankly wipes the floor with his opposition.

DHK tried to reason with him concerning his false ideas on ECCL7:29. He remains unteachable.

You would do well to listen to DHK correct your regular mis-use of the word "Church"....It would help you overcome your mistaken notions about "The Historic Faith" and the history of the "Church" .

Sometimes he cuts and pastes from false sites....

And I might just as quickly state that you do the same thing. You are the consummate copy/paster....sometimes your references are good, sometimes I would call them mistaken.

but he says he just says what he feels he sees in scripture.

That is what he does....there's nothing wrong with that. He's supposed to do that. We all do that, or should at least.

I do not think he comprehends well when he reads.

Generally speaking, while I disagree with him sometimes, I think he has perfectly good reading comprehension. Sometimes he may be mistaken but sometimes, I think your reading comprehension is mistaken too. His reading comprehension is at least no worse than the average poster on this board.

One thing I notice is he seems to want to be disruptive.

No more or less than many here do.

You know what I honestly believe? I think Winman wipes the floor with Calvinists around here quite often and frankly there is no adequate rejoinder or Scriptural refutation of his arguments and therefore, I think some of the Calvies around here (in large part) despise his posting because he often gets the upper-hand. I think that is why he catches more crap around here than many others do. He is continually posting Scripture, and usually not "abusing" it at all. Frankly, I rarely see a Calvinist take on his Scriptural arguments....they simply ignore any Scriptural argument he makes (because they can't refute it) or derisively dismiss it with a wave of the hand, and merely assert that he "abuses" Scripture. Often, this is coupled with their own separate arguments for their own P.O.V....but, rarely do they actually (satisfactorilly at least) actually engage the Scriptures he posts at all.
He fought for what he believed in his time.I do not pick fights with dead saints.Some of what he believed I also believe.However,

God brought reformation to His church because the church was floundering and infected with arminian error.The reformers not only reformed from the RC church....but had to bring reformation to anabaptist errors...see John Knox against anabaptist errors.

Yeah.........you really DO need DHK to re-teach you how the Scriptures define the word "CHURCH".........You "abuse" that word, like you accuse Winman of "abusing" Scripture.

You can allege what you want but the view I hold of the CHURCH is bible based , not based on the historical record.

Then don't appeal to what you believe to be the historical record to support your Theology. After all, it's a fallacious form of argument anyway, so why do it?

I am a Reformed Baptist in that I will go for scriptural truth wherever it is found.I have more in common with confessional Presbyterians than non confessional baptists.That is true.

Yes it is.

Many of his posts are novelties, many are blasphemous statements.

I hope you really are confident in that allegation. "Blasphemy" is quite the charge...I hope this is not an idle word. Use it carefully.

I do not believe the Spirit of God has believers declare such statements about the Godhead.

Be careful with how you phrase these kinds of statements. They can carry implications.

Cals respond to the posted links...non cals cannot biblically respond, so they ignore the links.

I also patently reject this baldly asserted and un-supported premise.

He has done so several times....he gives a list every couple of months where he lists names he is called...just ask him...he will list them for you,,,in fact he has done so recently...look at his recent posts.
Look up his posts...it is not false,but accurate.

Fine.....however you see it is fine with me.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hos,


You do not get any more individual then twins in a womb-

1 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Icon.........I wasn't talking about the twins in the womb. And actually, if you re-read your statement:

You do not get any more individual then twins in a womb-

You might, in fact find the ironic humor in it that I did. Read your statement again slowly.