The "Dog's Life" of Calvinism

[Dr. Bob]

A person may be wrong or not fully understand the sovereignty of God, and that is recognized. It is not an easy theological construct for our minds to grasp. And most don't WANT to bow before a totally sovereign God.

But if a person knows, understands and REJECTS it and places MAN as god (as the semi-pelagians do, working with God and not admitting their depravity and incapability of such righteousness in finneyesque blindness), that is false teaching and must be refuted publically.

 

[jcjordan]

That is very humble of you, jordan. You no doubt have a "guilty conscience/soul" to admit that. But let's be honest, shall we? If you take that dog home and all he does is attack you, what do you do?? Was he really more deserving?

skypair

If I only I were as humble as you claim. No, I don't have a guilty conscience nor soul. According to you, I don't have a soul.
Dog's don't have a will. After God regenerated me, my rebellion to Him ceased. God chose me while I was in rebellion toward him. It was my heart that was in rebellion, not just my actions.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Brother RB, in your opinon, is this better or worse than being called "worse than muslim"?

If I understood sky correctly, he is saying Calvinists do not have a soul, or else they are just beasts. No better than a dog. That a man who names the name of Christ in this manner, does in my view, put him on the same level as a false prophet.

But I hope this is not his meaning.

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I responded to ReformedBaptist's statement he was once a dog.

Skypair is trichotomous, I'm dichotomous...so no, I don't agree with the OP.

Perhaps your the dog...web-dog...hahaha. My friend, I think either your being too series with some of us or else your misunderstanding metaphors and over-literalizing some of the things I have written.

 

[Jarthur001]

To be honest, I don't understand what he is saying or implying. I only know he's "tri", I'm "di", and a soul separate from spirit plays into the analogy somehow.

Lets see....

So your a "di" as you called it. And I believe you are not Calvinist. So his analogy falls apart on you alone, being for some reason he has in his head that all non Calvinist are as you called it..."tri"

 

[TCGreek]

The op is a lie and a vile attack on believers who believe in a sovereign God who is in charge of salvation and not a man-centered false Gospel.

If I were close to skypair, I'd bite him. But I'm afraid of getting rabies

The same thing I was thinking. Thanks for this one, Dr. Bob. I needed it.

 

[webdog]

A person may be wrong or not fully understand the sovereignty of God, and that is recognized. It is not an easy theological construct for our minds to grasp. And most don't WANT to bow before a totally sovereign God.

But if a person knows, understands and REJECTS it and places MAN as god (as the semi-pelagians do, working with God and not admitting their depravity and incapability of such righteousness in finneyesque blindness), that is false teaching and must be refuted publically.

It starts with being wrong about God's sovereignty. God is in control (sovereign) not controlling. I don't kow of one non cal (who you refer to as "man centered") who do not WANT to bow before a totally sovereign God. For an administrator, your attitude stinks, brother.

Your second paragraph begins with a strawman that has been refuted so many times, it's not even worth responding to. As off as you feel skypair is in one direction...you are just as off in the other. As much as "robot" phrases are foolish in speaking of calvinists, "man centered" is just as foolish in speaking of non cal's. As a Dr. and an administrator, I am publically calling you out to stop with the ad hominems, veiled or otherwise.

 

[Aaron]

Unless you are a jew...you are still a dog (gentile). A redeemed dog, but a "dog" none the less.

Was reading thru and was, well, stunned by this statement. More tainted fruit from the poison tree of Dispensationalism: the idea that one can think another man enjoys a better standing before God on the basis of his genealogy.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Was reading thru and was, well, stunned by this statement. More tainted fruit from the poison tree of Dispensationalism: the idea that one can think another man enjoys a better standing before God on the basis of his genealogy.

I never caught that. Webdog, are you really saying that born-again Christians are dogs because they are Gentiles according to the flesh?

Thanks for pointing this our Aaron. Do you understand dispensationalists to teach this? Do they really think born-again believers are Gentiles?

 

[webdog]

I never caught that. Webdog, are you really saying that born-again Christians are dogs because they are Gentiles according to the flesh?

Thanks for pointing this our Aaron. Do you understand dispensationalists to teach this? Do they really think born-again believers are Gentiles?

The gentiles in Jesus' day were considered "dogs". I'm a born again believer...and I'm a gentile since I'm not born a Jew.

From apologeticspress.org...

To the Jews First and Also to the Greeks
In order for one to understand Jesus’ statement, he or she must recognize the primary purpose of the comment. Jesus was passing through the land of the Gentiles (Greeks) and was approached by a woman who was not a Jew. While Jesus’ message would eventually reach the Gentile world, it is evident from the Scriptures that the Jewish nation would be the initial recipient of that message. In his account of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew recorded that Jesus said: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). When Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the “limited commission,” He told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6).

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The gentiles in Jesus' day were considered "dogs". I'm a born again believer...and I'm a gentile since I'm not born a Jew.

From apologeticspress.org...

To the Jews First and Also to the Greeks
In order for one to understand Jesus’ statement, he or she must recognize the primary purpose of the comment. Jesus was passing through the land of the Gentiles (Greeks) and was approached by a woman who was not a Jew. While Jesus’ message would eventually reach the Gentile world, it is evident from the Scriptures that the Jewish nation would be the initial recipient of that message. In his account of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew recorded that Jesus said: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). When Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the “limited commission,” He told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6).

Thanks for the answer. I knew the info from apologetics press, but thanks for the info. So you still think of yourself as a Gentile? I know the Scripture speaks of Jews and Gentiles, the Circumcision and Uncircumcision, as realities. Of course they are. But isn't this according to the flesh?

I have come to see myself as a "Jew" in a spiritual sense, by adoption. This truth from Scripture has been so profound to me, that it has been hard to recieve. But the Lord is helping me.

 

[webdog]

Thanks for the answer. I knew the info from apologetics press, but thanks for the info. So you still think of yourself as a Gentile? I know the Scripture speaks of Jews and Gentiles, the Circumcision and Uncircumcision, as realities. Of course they are. But isn't this according to the flesh?

I have come to see myself as a "Jew" in a spiritual sense, by adoption. This truth from Scripture has been so profound to me, that it has been hard to recieve. But the Lord is helping me.

Since I'm a grafted in branch with the natural branches, I still see the national distinction. Of course we are all one in Christ, but I still believe God has a plan where all Israel will be "Israel" in the future. I believe this is the point of Romans 9 - 11, and the great tribulation.

 

[Allan]

Thanks for the answer. I knew the info from apologetics press, but thanks for the info. So you still think of yourself as a Gentile? I know the Scripture speaks of Jews and Gentiles, the Circumcision and Uncircumcision, as realities. Of course they are. But isn't this according to the flesh?

I have come to see myself as a "Jew" in a spiritual sense, by adoption. This truth from Scripture has been so profound to me, that it has been hard to recieve. But the Lord is helping me.

But you're not a Jew, your spiritually in Abraham and he was not a Jew. The Jewish lineage techinally began with Jacob (Isreal).

You however are not in Jacob but Abraham who was neither Jew nor Gentile (since Gentile was everyone not a Jew). Thus Paul distinquishes Jews, Gentiles, and Christians just as he distinquishes between Isreal and the Church.

 

[Allan]

Since I'm a grafted in branch with the natural branches, I still see the national distinction. Of course we are all one in Christ, but I still believe God has a plan where all Israel will be "Israel" in the future. I believe this is the point of Romans 9 - 11, and the great tribulation.

You are correct Web and it is even hard to get around this verse for them:

Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

 

[Jarthur001]

You are correct Web and it is even hard to get around this verse for them:

Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

well...not so hard.

If you take the context into account all things can be understood.

 

[Aaron]

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Rom. 2)

 

[ReformedBaptist]

But you're not a Jew, your spiritually in Abraham and he was not a Jew. The Jewish lineage techinally began with Jacob (Isreal).

You however are not in Jacob but Abraham who was neither Jew nor Gentile (since Gentile was everyone not a Jew). Thus Paul distinquishes Jews, Gentiles, and Christians just as he distinquishes between Isreal and the Church.

Aaron already quoted this verse, but I am a Jew in the eyes of God.

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2:28-29

While it is normal to recognize that there are Jews and Gentiles according to the flesh, as it concerns salvation there is only one people of God.

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor 12:13 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28

"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;" Romans 11:17

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Eph 2:11-13

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; v.19

This is the great mystery spoken of by the Apostle in chapter 3 of Ephesians. "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" verse 6

Not a different body, but the same body. "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;" Eph 2:15.


It seems pretty plain to me, but I have a better understanding of a dispensational point of view.

 

[Allan]

Aaron already quoted this verse, but I am a Jew in the eyes of God.

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2:28-29

I realize that Aaron used the same verse but both you and him seem to have the same flaw. You both 'seem' to allow your theology to dicate what scripture is to say rather than let the context dictate your theology.

Who is Paul addressing in this portion of Chapter 2?
Answer: The person proclaiming theself to be a JEW (Rom 2:17 - "But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God (18) and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law;"

And if is from that point that Paul leaves the Gentiles and deals with the Jews and their legalism.

The rest of your post is a peice-meal of scripture that neglects the rest of scripture so-as-to agree with your personal theological view. The rest of this simply dips into to much into something that would take multiple posting to address. I would suggest John MacArthur's commentaries on each of these. I have them but I'm not going to cut and paste pages worth on here. But they are easily refuted just as well. If there is something inparticular you want to see then I will oblidge but it is pointless. Early church fathers writtings hold to a Premil view and it was not till Augustine came along that this 'CT view" wasn't anything more than a weak view. Augustine disliked the Jews (though he was not alone in this among christians) and the theology he created illistrates quite well his personal view. And it is still in the theological majority both a staunch Catholic view (and Reformed) veiw today.

While it is normal to recognize that there are Jews and Gentiles according to the flesh, as it concerns salvation there is only one people of God.

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor 12:13 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28

"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;" Romans 11:17

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Eph 2:11-13

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; v.19

This is the great mystery spoken of by the Apostle in chapter 3 of Ephesians. "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" verse 6

Not a different body, but the same body. "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;" Eph 2:15.


It seems pretty plain to me, but I have a better understanding of a dispensational point of view.

It is apparent you do not grasp the dispensational view very well because you can't grasp that the disciples all thought Jewish Nation was to be exalted the kingdom restored back to Israel as promised now that Christ had risen (Acts 1:6), or that Paul distinquished between the Israel and Church every time he mentions them. I agree that it can't be any more plain than what the context dictates, but here we are

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I realize that Aaron used the same verse but both you and him seem to have the same flaw. You both 'seem' to allow your theology to dicate what scripture is to say rather than let the context dictate your theology.

I am sure your theology never affects your understanding of Scripture. What is your theology again? Your a dispensationalist...which itself seems to me to be a hermenutic....an interpretation oF Scripture, just as covenant theology is.

Who is Paul addressing in this portion of Chapter 2?
Answer: The person proclaiming theself to be a JEW (Rom 2:17 - "But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God (18) and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law;"

My answer: He is telling the Jew who trusts in his Jewishness that one is a Jew who is one inwardly, not in the flesh. And I are one them. :thumbs:

And if is from that point that Paul leaves the Gentiles and deals with the Jews and their legalism.

Yeah...but why? "For there is no respect of persons with God. "

The rest of your post is a peice-meal of scripture that neglects the rest of scripture so-as-to agree with your personal theological view. The rest of this simply dips into to much into something that would take multiple posting to address. I would suggest John MacArthur's commentaries on each of these. I have them but I'm not going to cut and paste pages worth on here. But they are easily refuted just as well. If there is something imparticular you want to see then I will oblidge but it is pointless. Early church fathers writtings hold to a Premil view and it was not till Augustine came along that it wasn't anything more than a weak view. Augustine dispised the Jews and the theology he created illistrates quite well and is why it is still in the majority both a staunch Catholic view (and Reformed) veiw today.

Naa...don't waste your time on me. And neither will I spend my time fixing your history.

It is apparent you do not grasp the dispensational view very well because you can't grasp that the disciples all thought Jewish Nation was to be exalted the kingdom restored back to Israel as promised now that Christ had risen (Acts 1:6), or that Paul distinquished between the Israel and Church every time he mentions them. I agree that it can't be any more plain than what the context dictates, but here we are

I probably don't. I grasped enough of their teaching so far to know its extremely faulty. But hey, like you said, to you its pointless talking with me. Good day to you sir.

 

[Kevin M]

So, I understand how you feel. I understand how you think. I understand all of those things because no one comes to a biblical
understanding of the doctrine of sovereign election without working
through those issues.But then again.what satisfies my reason and
what satisfies my emotion, and what satisfies my sense of freedom
is not the determiner of truth. And so we have come back to that point,
I'm not God. And while things may not make sense to my reason, my
reason is fallen. And while things may not make sense to my emotion,
my emotion is fallen. And while things might not seem to square up
with my sense of freedom, my freedom is fallen too. And one thing
I will not do and none of us really would openly want to do, we will not
create God in our image. We will not design God to fit our reason, our
emotion and our freedom.

We cannot design God to be what we think He should be. We cannot
design God to act how we think He should act. Still there are some who appear to be bold enough to make the attempt. They seem to be undisturbed by the fact that in rejecting the doctrine of divine election,
predestination, they have created a God who is not the God of the
Bible. The God of their creation may be more reasonable to them,He
may be more comfortable to them. He may fit their instincts better.
But the fact of the matter is, that God which they have made is not
the true God. A misrepresentation of God, any corruption of God,any
diminishing of God is to then create a God in your own mind that is
not the true and living God and such misrepresentations inevitable
corrupt our worship, they corrupt our service to Him and they can be
blasphemous as well as ignorant.

John MacArthur The Doctrine of Election, Part 2.

Yea, What he said.