• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Elect and Not Are Twins

Gup20

Active Member
I do not want to speak for Aaron, but you may be misunderstanding him.

The free will position believes that everyone has the ability (i.e. "natural power") to either accept or reject the Gospel message, and the pivot on which that decision rests is the choice of the individual. This is why Aaron states, "those who say yes do so because they are inherently better than those who say no".

Let me put it another way. If person A and person B both hear the Gospel message and only person B responds in faith, why did he believe and person A did not? If the free will advocate is honest with himself he has to say that the decision comes down to the choice of the individual. If God will not force anyone to believe then, de facto, person B has something to brag about. Jesus Christ may have made the way possible for salvation, but salvation cannot occur unless and until the individual chooses to believe. Very few people on the free will side will admit to that understanding because it does sound wrong. How can God, from eternity, orchestrate every facet of salvation only to leave the final piece up to a vile, wretched sinner who is dead in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1) and unrighteous (Romans 3:9)? It is easier to overlook the biblical description of the sinner's plight and make the plea for free will.

I marvel at the silliness of the argument that human beings can't "believe certain information" unless infused with magical or mystical power. Human beings can believe anything they are told, regardless of the truth quality of that information (and many do believe "fake news"). Obviously, people can believe anything about Muhammed and Allah and Buddha with no problem... but believe anything good about Jesus? Nope... not humanly possible (according to Calvinists). God told Adam that he should not eat from the tree of the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL.... it wasn't the tree of the knowledge of ONLY EVIL. We can know both. John 3:19 says that light came into the world, but we loved darkness (indicating an element of choice).

Now the ONLY reason for enduing the choice to believe the gospel with this mystical, majical juju is because it is assumed that God immediately acts on the belief to make the person righteous (to 'save' them) and Calvinists cannot fathom how a person who is lost in sin can have that kind of power over the God of the universe to force him to act according to their will. To them, this diminishes God's sovereignty. And perhaps it would if there were any truth to that assumption. Where the assumption is wrong is in the fact that faith CAUSES God to act to make the person righteous. Faith does no such thing. This is why I say that faith and righteousness have an INDIRECT relationship. Faith merely qualifies a person as a theological descendant of Abraham. It does not make them righteous. Abraham himself was the only person in history who will ever have been made righteous directly for his faith. And there is a good reason for that -- we are all out of saviours who can exchange their righteous state for Abraham's sinful state.

The thing that makes those with faith righteous... the thing that motivates God to make a person righteous... is not the person's faith. The thing that motivates the creator of the universe is His own nature. God promised with a covenant or oath that Abraham's descendants would inherit the righteousness that Abraham was given. The nature of God is that He keeps His promises. God is motivated by His Word to make the descendants of Abraham righteous, just as he promised. When we have the same faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ that Abraham had (Abraham was the first to hear the gospel, and therefore the first to believe the gospel, and therefore all who believe or have faith in the gospel are his theological descendants) we are qualified as his descendants. God makes us righteous not because of our faith, but because He is keeping his oath to Abraham to bless his descendants.
 

Rockson

Active Member
I'm not bashing God's Sovereignty... I"m explaining how His soverignty is much, much greater than ether Calvin or Arminius could have ever imagined.

I don't think you're doing that either. I think it's that other poster being extreme.

Complete free will is not Biblical.

Unfortunate with a subject like this one has to continually put qualifiers on statements. People many times are talking past each other on this not realizing they're not even on the same page on just how the term "complete free will" is understood by the other. Some times they may agree with each other but don't even know it.
 

Gup20

Active Member
Unfortunate with a subject like this one has to continually put qualifiers on statements. People many times are talking past each other on this not realizing they're not even on the same page on just how the term "complete free will" is understood by the other. Some times they may agree with each other but don't even know it.
If we had completely free will we could choose to be unrepentant & righteous... we could choose to reject God & still have eternal life. But we don’t. Those who reject God ... those who do not believe the gospel... will not have life. We can either choose to believe & have life or we can choose not to believe & remain dead in our trespasses & sin.

As it pertains to salvation we have only 1 choice which leads to life, and only 1 choice which leads to death. We have to other options.
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
7 neither, because they are Abraham`s seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. Ro 9



Incredible. Faith is not mentioned, you've again imposed into the text, it's about Him who calleth (v 11). Christ is not mentioned, you've again imposed into the text. You gom it up so much that I don't really have the will to unravel it. Maybe later after I get some sleep.



Incredible. "Paul was not using...Jacob to show individual election"

11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. Ro 9

God's sovereign grace offends you so much that you refuse to recognize the plain meaning of the words.


7 neither, because they are Abraham`s seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. Ro 9

Do those verses say the same thing as the following?

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:26-29
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Are you saying God hated Esau in the womb? As for that poem it has nothing to do with scripture. SOLA SCRIPTURA please.
When did God say he hated Esau , while yet in the womb or after Esau sold His birthright for some "Red Stew' ?

Plus Esau married Hittite women which was against the ordinance of God to Abraham to not marry of Canaanites. Why, they had Nephilim blood line.
In the New Testament, Esau’s choice to sell his birthright is used as an example of ungodliness—a “godless” person who will put physical desires over spiritual blessings (Hebrews 12:15-17). By his negative example, Esau teaches us to hold fast to what is truly important, even if it means denying the appetites of the flesh. Both Old and New Testaments use the story of Jacob and Esau to illustrate God’s calling and election. God chose the younger Jacob to carry on the Abrahamic Covenant, while Esau was providentially excluded from the Messianic line (Malachi 1:2-3; Romans 9:11-14).

The New Covenant represents Jacob and Esau the Old. It would be Mother Miryam (Mary) and the Apostles who would carry on the Abrahamic Covenant Older must serve the Younger and the younger is to whom all truth is given. Though Christ went down to all the peoples of the past and saved the captives it is the New Covenant the Blessings are given. For today,those who reject Christ are like Esau and are called Edom (Red) they are marked and unclean. Esau was the favored of his father while Jacob his mother . God's disapproval of Esau was based on Esau's lax approach to the Birthright , he had NO regard for it and forfeited being the lineage of Christ..
God is not a man who by whim of emotion hated Esau. So there must be a good reason. And we should look at that reason so we can avoid being like Esau. As we study the story of Esau, we discover there are actually several reasons why God hated him. Again , but looking more deeply we see in scripture:

Esau was self-centered, living for the moment, and godless. Being the firstborn had no value. He preferred to be out hunting rather than tending to his inheritance and learning the ways of Adonai from his father and grandfather.

His grandfather?! Yes, if Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born, and died at 175, then he was alive for the first 15 years of the Esau’s life. Esau would have heard the story of creation and the story of the flood. He would have heard from Abraham how the Creator called him from the land of Ur and promised to give him land and a family so large that no one could count them. He would have heard first-hand how his grandmother, Sarah, was barren and by a miracle of God gave birth to his father when she was 90. He would also hear how his parents had prayed for 20 years for his birth. Or maybe all those stories bored him. Maybe, like so many teenagers today, he headed out the door to do his own thing rather than having to listen to another long, boring story.
Obviously it all meant nothing to him because he sold his birthright to his twin brother Jacob for a bowl of red stew. Why? According to Esau he was “about to die” from hunger. Seriously? This man was a prince. His grandfather, Abraham, had accumulated so much wealth that he had to split off from Lot. His father Isaac added more to that and had so much that the Philistines asked him to leave their area. And yet here he was, starving to death ready to give up the right of firstborn for a bowl of red stew!
So what exactly did Esau sell? What was the right of firstborn?

When it comes to inheritance, the firstborn is entitled to a double portion. That means if there are two children, the firstborn gets two-thirds of the estate, and the second child gets one-third. Likewise, if there are three children, the estate is divided into four, the firstborn getting half, and the remaining two children one-quarter each.

So maybe Esau was thinking that one-third of the estate was plenty. But there’s more.

The firstborn becomes the head of the family. As the head, he operates in the role of the priest in the family. In this case, he would be the one to lead the family in the worship of Adonai, teaching the family His statutes, laws, and ordinances. But wait! What laws? The giving of the law didn’t happen until Sinai.

When we look at Genesis 26, where God met with Isaac, God explained He was going to bless Isaac “because Abraham heeded what I said and did what I told him to do – he followed my decrees, my regulations, and my teachings.” So there was something that Abraham knew about God, and he passed that on to Isaac who in turn passed it on to the twins. Or did he?

Remember, Genesis 25 tells us that Esau became a skillful hunter while Jacob stayed in the tents. It was in the tents that Jacob learned from his parents the way of Adonai. It was in the tents that he would observe his father leading the family, worshiping God, and running the family business. Jacob would know the value of the covenant promise God gave to Abraham and confirmed with Isaac. He would know that the greatest inheritance for the firstborn is that covenant promise.

But Esau spent his time doing what he wanted. And what he wanted was to hunt and be outside. And when he came in, he wanted to eat. It reminds me of how we are today with a need for instant gratification. Think about it. Jacob was cutting a deal. He offered Esau instant gratification – a bowl of red stew – in exchange for the covenant promise from God.

At the snap of Esau’s finger he could have had a team of servants prepare a feast for him. But he couldn’t wait. He didn’t want to wait. He didn’t want to think about the consequences, because he wanted instant gratification. Whatever God had to offer him, he wasn’t interested. So when Jacob offered him a trade, he took it.

So what can we learn from this?

  • We should have our priorities in order, keeping God and family in the forefront of our minds.
  • The promises of God, even when they seem slow in coming, far outweigh the satisfaction of the moment.
  • We should always stop and think about the consequences of our choices.
Not in the womb but in Esau's bad choices.
Leaving aside your presumptuous argument with the Apostle, I didn't say in my post that one was loved and the other hated while in the womb (though I'm not so enraptured with my own imagination to presume to argue with the Paul's, and, no doubt, the rabbinical application of Malachi) . I said, God accepted one, and rejected the other. "The elder shall serve the younger."

And wherein does the iniquity of Esau and his descendants surpass that of the Jews? Esau may have been profane, but Jacob was a liar and a thief, and his descendants so rebellious and idolatrous as to be called the sister of Sodom.

One thing prevented their total annihilation: God's love toward them and His election. And that's the point of the passage. God's purposes according to election. Jacob was not a better man than Esau.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
I'm not bashing God's Sovereignty... I"m explaining how His soverignty is much, much greater than ether Calvin or Arminius could have ever imagined.

Take this example: I offer my child a simple, binary choice (two options); do you want pancakes for breakfast or do you want waffles. My child doesn't have free will ... they can't choose steak and eggs... they can't choose candy. They have the choice, yet because I am completely sovereign over breakfast, I can offer more than one possibility without any damage to my sovereignty.

The Calvinist/Arminianist perspectives of sovereignty require such a weak God who could only bear one possible choice.

Deuteronomy 30:19
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,​

Not only does God not make this choice for us, but he commands us 3 times in this chapter to make this choice for ourselves... and He goes even further to say that it is not too difficult for us to make the choice, and the choice is not made in heaven by God.

Deu 30:11-15 NASB
11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. 15 "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;​

The Calvinist argument is that Deutermonomy 30 is only for the Jews are references The Law of Moses. This is directly contradicted by Paul in Romans 10 when he quotes this very passage and says undeniably that this is in regards to the righteousness which comes by faith.

Rom 10:5-11 NASB
5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." 8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."​

Complete free will is not Biblical. But God giving us a distinct binary choice - choose life or choose death - only shows God's soverignty to be greater and more powerful than we can imagine in that it can account for multiple scenarios and choices. And further when Deuteronomy 30:19 talks about the salvation through faith, it says he calls "heaven" and "earth" to "witness". This parallels the synergistic nature of salvation that Paul talks about in Romans 8:

Rom 8:16-17 NASB
16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with [Him] so that we may also be glorified with [Him.]​

Notice that "the spirit himself" (heaven from Deu 30) and our spirit (earth from Deu 30), testifies (witnesses from Deu 30) that we are children of God. Note what the salvation choice qualifies the believer for; to be children and fellow heirs. It qualifies us for human adoption into the family of Abraham.

Gal 3:6-9 NASB
6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, [saying,] "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.​
Yeah, I get what you're saying. You aren't the first to postulate that notion. What the Calvinist does is go by what is revealed in the Scriptures, and most wouldn't equate the preaching of the Cross with offering the choice of pancakes or waffles. (Which, if you really wanted to make your example a better fit to the choices laid before us by God, put before your child milk and poison, knowing that your child has a love for poison that surpasses even the love of life, and then command him to choose.)

Calvinism doesn't have a small view of God, it has a true view of man.

Any synthesis of Calvinism (and by Calvinism, I mean the Gospel) with noncalvinism is noncalvinist by nature. It leavens the whole lump. What you're trying to do with your synthesis is to resolve what you feel is an injustice on the part of God to accept one and reject another, all other things being equal. Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?

So you bind God with a fairness doctrine, and put the value on the man making the choice. All things being equal, why would one chose life and another death? The conclusion demanded by your notion is, because one man is better than another.
 

Gup20

Active Member
Yeah, I get what you're saying. You aren't the first to postulate that notion. What the Calvinist does is go by what is revealed in the Scriptures

The reason the Calvin vs Arminius debate never ends is because both views are unscriptural and fail to comprehend the basic mechanics of salvation. Both Calvin & Arminius assume faith is the direct cause of righteousness (salvation). It is not. When their belief systems can’t even get the basic purpose of faith established, let alone agree with scripture on the basic order or sequence, then you know the theology is bankrupt.

Calvinism doesn't have a small view of God, it has a true view of man.

Again, neither Calvin nor Arminius gets the basics right, let alone the complexities.

For example, God Himself in Genesis calls it the “tree of the knowledge of good & evil”, yet Calvinists view of man is that he is too depraved to have any knowledge of good. It flies in the face of the most basic scripture.

Calvinism has a prideful view of man, as does Arminianism. Rather than take scripture on its face, and let man be as good and as evil as God Himself states he is, it goes so far out of the way to tell God how great He is and disparage man as if doing so scores them piety points with God. Well God loves man, & God loves truth, so Calvinist extremism doesn’t impress God, it saddens Him.

Any synthesis of Calvinism (and by Calvinism, I mean the Gospel) with noncalvinism is noncalvinist by nature. It leavens the whole lump. What you're trying to do with your synthesis is to resolve what you feel is an injustice on the part of God to accept one and reject another, all other things being equal. Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?


Nah, I think God had it right with the flood. Kill everyone & start over.

So you bind God with a fairness doctrine, and put the value on the man making the choice. All things being equal, why would one chose life and another death? The conclusion demanded by your notion is, because one man is better than another.

Nah... I get my theology from scripture & prayer alone. I don’t read books about the Bible... I don’t read philosophy... I don’t read Bible commentaries. I read the Bible & only the Bible. I don’t know what “fairness doctrine” is because that is not a term I’ve ever read in scripture.

Fair would be God utterly wiping man from history without a chance of salvation or grace. Grace & forgiveness are not fair... they are enormous mercies on Gods part.

To understand it think through this thought experiment ; take the action of killing a living creature and apply it to several scenarios. Let’s say you kill an ant - this is no great offense. Now let’s say you kill a family’s beloved pet dog... is this the same, better, or worse than killing an ant? Most would say orders of magnitude worse than the ant. How about killing a person? Is this the same, better, or worse than killing a dog? Again, most would agree it’s orders of magnitude worse than killing the dog. So what changed in the 3 scenarios? What changed the severity of the offense was who it was perpetrated against. So let’s say you commit an offense (sin) against An infinite being like God - how evil is that action? The action is infinitely evil because of who God is. The only just punishment for an infinitely evil act is an infinite punishment, and that’s what death & hell are - the just punishment for sin because of who God is, not because of who man is.

You can have the Biblical view of man that he has the knowledge of both good & evil and God will still be infinitely more than finite man. You don’t need to go into error & say man is totally depraved when scripture clearly indicates he isn’t.

Moreover Romans 2 says even unsaved Gentiles who do not know God or His law still have God’s law written on their heart. So how can a man be totally depraved when he has the knowledge of good (and evil) and he has God’s good law written on his heart?

Deuteronomy 30:1 (NASB) "So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you,

Deuteronomy 30:6 (NASB) "Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

Deuteronomy 30:11-15 (NASB) 11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. 15 "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;

Deuteronomy 30:19 (NASB) "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

We know from Romans 10 that Deuteronomy 30 is talking about salvation based on faith. It says salvation is s choice God sets before man, and that the choice for salvation is not too difficult for man to make, and that the choice is not made by God in heaven.
 

Rockson

Active Member
If we had completely free will we could choose to be unrepentant & righteous... we could choose to reject God & still have eternal life. But we don’t. Those who reject God ... those who do not believe the gospel... will not have life. We can either choose to believe & have life or we can choose not to believe & remain dead in our trespasses & sin.

As it pertains to salvation we have only 1 choice which leads to life, and only 1 choice which leads to death. We have to other options.

Yes and I agree with your basic statements above. When I say our will is completely free that is in the context of how you say the choice of life or death we have. But like I said some want to give an unfair treatment on just what complete free will would be. If you have free will you should they be able to do impossible things as in jump 100 feet in the air or things like that they'll say, therefore not a fair criticism, they make.
 

Gup20

Active Member
Yes and I agree with your basic statements above. When I say our will is completely free that is in the context of how you say the choice of life or death we have. But like I said some want to give an unfair treatment on just what complete free will would be. If you have free will you should they be able to do impossible things as in jump 100 feet in the air or things like that they'll say, therefore not a fair criticism, they make.
To me, it’s like Peter saying to Jesus “God forbid this shall never happen to you!” And Jesus turning says “get behind me Satan.” So many have seemingly good intentions behind their willful ignorance of scripture... even to say how amazing & sovereign God is, but when in their exuberant support of God they then ignore God, His Word, and His command to choose life or death for ourselves it is not God honoring, but rather honors the enemy. Peter’s thought was also on the sovereignty & supremacy of Jesus, but he refused to understand God’s actual plans & purposes.
 
Leaving aside your presumptuous argument with the Apostle, I didn't say in my post that one was loved and the other hated while in the womb (though I'm not so enraptured with my own imagination to presume to argue with the Paul's, and, no doubt, the rabbinical application of Malachi) . I said, God accepted one, and rejected the other. "The elder shall serve the younger."

And wherein does the iniquity of Esau and his descendants surpass that of the Jews? Esau may have been profane, but Jacob was a liar and a thief, and his descendants so rebellious and idolatrous as to be called the sister of Sodom.

One thing prevented their total annihilation: God's love toward them and His election. And that's the point of the passage. God's purposes according to election. Jacob was not a better man than Esau.
A new thread bashing God's sovereignty in salvation was started.

Calvin & Arminius were both wrong

No matter how it's sliced, saying that one has natural power to say yes or no to grace is to say that those who say yes do so because they are inherently better than those who say no.

But God was wise to make Jacob and Esau twins. While yet in the womb. Each equally innocent. Neither having done any good or evil. Both conceived of the same act, under the same star, of the same heritage, both with the same nurturing and enviroment. In every way equal and level, and neither being given a choice, God accepted one, and rejected the other.

Accepted, rejected -loved hated, it all eludes to what God said. If not in the womb according to your argument then when?
 

Gup20

Active Member
A new thread bashing God's sovereignty in salvation was started.

Calvin & Arminius were both wrong

No matter how it's sliced, saying that one has natural power to say yes or no to grace is to say that those who say yes do so because they are inherently better than those who say no.

Take some time reading my comments in that thread. You’ll see the reason I say both Calvin & Arminius are wrong is both sssume that faith appropriates righteousness in the you just describe. However, the Bible tells a different story. Biblically, faith does not qualify a person to obtain righteousness, but rather faith qualifies a person for membership in the group “the descendants of Abraham.” Faith does not say yes or no to grace... it says yes or no to human adoption with Abraham as your father. When you have the same faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ that Abraham had, you are a spiritual descendant of Abraham and an heir according to God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the righteousness he was given for his faith.

So the notion that man’s faith affects or does not affect God’s Grace is irrelevant because interacting with God’s Grace is not a function of faith. Faith merely qualifies us for human adoption under the Father of Many Nations. That is the scope & function & role that faith plays in our salvation.

God promised the descendants of Abraham would inherit Christ’s righteousness. So righteousness is an undeserved gift based on inheritance. God’s motivation for making a person righteous is not their faith - God is motivated by His own promise to Abraham to make Abraham’s descendants inherit the everlasting covenant.

Calvinists seem to think they need a magical, mystical regeneration in order to motivate God’s Grace. Nope. God isn’t motivated by us... He motivates Himself by His own word.
 

Rockson

Active Member
To me, it’s like Peter saying to Jesus “God forbid this shall never happen to you!” And Jesus turning says “get behind me Satan.” So many have seemingly good intentions behind their willful ignorance of scripture... even to say how amazing & sovereign God is, but when in their exuberant support of God they then ignore God, His Word, and His command to choose life or death for ourselves it is not God honoring, but rather honors the enemy. Peter’s thought was also on the sovereignty & supremacy of Jesus, but he refused to understand God’s actual plans & purposes.


Yes it's a false humility. It does look good and sound good to a point but when one takes the wraps off of it they're left with dealing with the ramifications of such a position. To me it seems Calvinists just set them aside by calling them a mystery.
 

Gup20

Active Member
Yes it's a false humility. It does look good and sound good to a point but when one takes the wraps off of it they're left with dealing with the ramifications of such a position. To me it seems Calvinists just set them aside by calling them a mystery.
I agree. When people (be they Calvinists or Arminianists, or any other ism's or ists you want to think of) say that salvation is a mystery, I like to remind them of Colossians:

Colossians 1:26
that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been revealed to His saints,
27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.


Colossians 2:2
that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself,
3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
4 I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
The reason the Calvin vs Arminius debate never ends is because both views are unscriptural and fail to comprehend the basic mechanics of salvation.
Baloney. The reason is tares are allowed to grow with the wheat.

When their belief systems can’t even get the basic purpose of faith established, let alone agree with scripture on the basic order or sequence, then you know the theology is bankrupt.
You're swinging a double-edged sword there, bud. Be careful you don't get cut.

Doh! Too late.

Again, neither Calvin nor Arminius gets the basics right, let alone the complexities.

For example, God Himself in Genesis calls it the “tree of the knowledge of good & evil”, yet Calvinists view of man is that he is too depraved to have any knowledge of good. It flies in the face of the most basic scripture.
Lol. I don't know which so-called Calvinist you've been talking to, but that is not a Calvinist position. And John Calvin didn't belch that subterfuge either. I'll say here, that John Calvin is not seen by the Calvinists as the father of their doctrines. These doctrines, which were taught by Christ and Paul and all the Apostles, were "made of none effect" by the corruptions of Rome, and are the bedrock of the Gospel and of the Protestant Reformation, being also the doctrines of John Wycliffe and Martin Luther. These doctrines are no more Calvin's than Sola Fide is Luther's, though they were God's instruments in bringing these things back to light. But now they hold the label of Calvin's name.

That's okay. I'll take the label gladly. It is as much a shame to Calvin as it is a glory to me to be called a Calvinist.

So, you should read Calvin on the knowledge of God, and of good and evil, before you ascribe the drivel to him that you just did, and then presume to reprove him for it.

The Calvinist position is that men can and do know good and evil. The nations show it in their laws. The problem is their knowledge is corrupted, and the hearts of men are corrupted. They know to do good, but they do not do it, because they love evil.

Christ said, If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children . . .

Calvinism has a prideful view of man, as does Arminianism. Rather than take scripture on its face, and let man be as good and as evil as God Himself states he is, it goes so far out of the way to tell God how great He is and disparage man as if doing so scores them piety points with God. Well God loves man, & God loves truth, so Calvinist extremism doesn’t impress God, it saddens Him.
Lol. I think I've already established that your grasp of Calvinism is rather slippery.

I don’t read books about the Bible... I don’t read philosophy... I don’t read Bible commentaries.
I think that's abundantly clear.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
I don’t read books about the Bible... I don’t read philosophy... I don’t read Bible commentaries.

Here is a man that needs no teacher.

LOL.

I guess the gifts Christ sent his elect weren't meant for you. :D
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well, you seem to have it together here:

But God was wise to make Jacob and Esau twins. While yet in the womb. Each equally innocent. Neither having done any good or evil. Both conceived of the same act, under the same star, of the same heritage, both with the same nurturing and enviroment. In every way equal and level, and neither being given a choice, God accepted one, and rejected the other.
But I lose you here:

Accepted, rejected -loved hated, it all eludes to what God said. If not in the womb according to your argument then when?

Which are you? fer or agin?
 
Well, you seem to have it together here:


But I lose you here:



Which are you? fer or agin?
I was quoting the OP I did not say anything concerning:
:"But God was wise to make Jacob and Esau twins. While yet in the womb. Each equally innocent. Neither having done any good or evil. Both conceived of the same act, under the same star, of the same heritage, both with the same nurturing and enviroment. In every way equal and level, and neither being given a choice, God accepted one, and rejected the other."

I was simply asking when , to Aaron as to when he thought this rejection or hate was toward Esau, is all. I quoted him I really didn't give an answer in what you quote, just seeking understanding to Aaron's point of view . Wondering if he could elborate.
 

Gup20

Active Member
Baloney. The reason is tares are allowed to grow with the wheat.

Blue because grapes don’t have teeth.

You're swinging a double-edged sword there, bud. Be careful you don't get cut.

It’s actually an axe.

Lol. I don't know which so-called Calvinist you've been talking to, but that is not a Calvinist position. And John Calvin didn't belch that subterfuge either. I'll say here, that John Calvin is not seen by the Calvinists as the father of their doctrines. These doctrines, which were taught by Christ and Paul and all the Apostles, were "made of none effect" by the corruptions of Rome, and are the bedrock of the Gospel and of the Protestant Reformation, being also the doctrines of John Wycliffe and Martin Luther. These doctrines are no more Calvin's than Sola Fide is Luther's, though they were God's instruments in bringing these things back to light. But now they hold the label of Calvin's name.

None of those people’s names or doctrines mean anything to me because they aren’t in the Bible. If it’s not a term the Bible uses, I don’t pay much attention to it.

That's okay. I'll take the label gladly. It is as much a shame to Calvin as it is a glory to me to be called a Calvinist.

So, you should read Calvin on the knowledge of God, and of good and evil, before you ascribe the drivel to him that you just did, and then presume to reprove him for it.

You should read what Paul says about Deuteronomy 30.

The Calvinist position is that men can and do know good and evil. The nations show it in their laws. The problem is their knowledge is corrupted, and the hearts of men are corrupted. They know to do good, but they do not do it, because they love evil.

Christ said, If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children . . .

Lol. I think I've already established that your grasp of Calvinism is rather slippery.

I think that's abundantly clear.

Truly my knowledge of Calvinism comes only from Calvinists I have conversations with. But it’s clear they know very little about the mechanics of salvation as they get the basics wrong.

For example, Calvinists say you have to be made righteous and have the power of the Holy Spirit in order to believe the gospel. Yet everything in scripture says righteousness comes after faith. Abraham believed God & it was credited to him as righteousness.

Acts 11:17 (NASB)
"Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as [He gave] to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"

Ephesians 1:13-14 (NASB) 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
 
Here is a man that needs no teacher.

LOL.

I guess the gifts Christ sent his elect weren't meant for you. :D
Maybe he is an elect? Christ did say we need no other teachers, the Holy Spirit is to teach the elect. As for philosophy ....we are not to get caught up in that, concerning men's precepts. Point is, it sounds like you presume to be an elect and those you point to, you do not know that for sure, just as you do not know if he may himself be an elect of God. God will justify him if he is.

He has not spoken pridefully, that is a good indication. He does not presume to be something ,he is simply glorifying God and His unfathomable wisdom. He does have it right, the scriptures are all we need to know about God, that and His holy Spirit to guide us in understanding His word.

Too many "scholars" and know it alls , Judas was a scholar, just saying. People should reserve judgement, he said nothing wrong except disagree with you, not God.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"Gup20,

Now the ONLY reason for enduing the choice to believe the gospel with this mystical, majical juju is because it is assumed that God immediately acts on the belief to make the person righteous (to 'save' them) and Calvinists cannot fathom how a person who is lost in sin can have that kind of power over the God of the universe to force him to act according to their will. To them, this diminishes God's sovereignty.

This, as posted, is completely unbiblical.I have no idea what you are thinking to suggest that man forces God to do anything. That is blasphemous.:Cautious:Cautious:Cautious
 
Top