The Fall of Man

But I should say on the "upside" John that in making that flip-flop argument AGAINST the arbitrary selection model for the elect - you are finally taking at least one single point in the CFS and finding fault with it by flip-flopping and saying that INSTEAD of the Sovereign God arbitrarily SELECTING -- in fact election is based on clear observable DNA and GENETICS! The elect are clearly DETERMINE from EARTHLY family status ALONE!!

Certainly that would shoot my CSF scenario right in the head!! Way to go brother!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

WONDERFUL flip flop!!


HERE is a direct quote from Charles Haden Spurgeon “Showing” that the arbitrary selection of the elect by God is NOT based on the family status of the lost.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1148.html#000000

By contrast this CFS quote is in PERFECT harmony with Spurgeon's claim that NOTHING about the individual tells us that they would be selected as the elect NOT EVEN family status!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(No mercy on the precious child of the Calvinist Parent who runs to God and says "Couldn't you have DONE SOMETHING for my precious daughter"?? To which God gives the answer that Calvinism so longs to hear "Well of course I COULD IF I had CARED to - I simply HAD NO MERCY on the one that you love so much. Why not join me and be HAPPY?"

How "instructive".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is it that the application of Spurgeon's message is "nonsense" when you yourself call God the "despot" who selects out the elect any way it pleases and Spurgeon observes that it is WITHOUT respect to family status.

Can I help it that you flip-flop instead of staying consisten with Spurgeon AND with your OWN "God is despot" ideas??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

Doesn't matter what I say to you you believe what you want. If scripture made any difference you would be a Calvinist!

See what I mean? I said, "But He isn't the Saviour of the world is He? He has not saved the world has He? Only 'some'." And you answer with sarcasm instead of truth. He is not the Saviour of everyman is He, look it up, a Saviour saves or He is not a Saviour is He? So 'world' does not mean everyone ever born does it? Does it?
Matt 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." No might be's but He will save which makes Him my Saviour.

Bilge water tastes good to you I see. The scripture is quite plain that not all hear, is this not so? You are not being honest by claiming all get a chance. PS 147:19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws.
And:
RO 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law...
Seems pretty straight forward to me. How can they hear if no one is sent? Now prove from scripture that all get to hear. Answer this please. Do all get to hear? Yes or no will do. Yes = denial of scripture and no = a major failure in your doctrine.

Yes it would actually have you got one? HaHa! When have I said that repeatedly? Once is not repeatedly! All things originate with God where else would you find a Despot who allows and permits subjects a choice? If you have your way only in the bible can we see a Despot with the ability to be the very Despot of Despots and you have Him wringing His hands and crying His eyes out because He is sad? That's girlie that is! He is a Rock not a Dear.
2SA 16:11 David then said to Abishai and all his officials, "My son, who is of my own flesh, is trying to take my life. How much more, then, this Benjamite! Leave him alone; let him curse, for the LORD has told him to.
What He did with Shimei is what you would expect from the Sovereign.

Just to show that He does that sort of thing.

Brother?

Have you become a Baptist? What about where Charlie boy talks of election you don't believe him then as well do you? Why believe him here whatever it says, I did not read it. Because you take anything from anyone to support yourself and you ignore the scriptural warning that no good comes from a bad tree and that is what Spurgeon must be if He preached Calvinism. I would not use Wesley to support a wonky table let alone use His words to support any argument but there you go, maybe my standard is too high.

john.

 

Hello Bob. Your not going to like this much. HaHa.

Well old chap I see that you have found me out you think? Quoting scripture that does not exist to support heresy is your charge against me. I plead not guilty and charge you with ignorance only.

God is the Sovereign despot of all men (II Pet. 2:1). A thing the bible does not say? HaHa.
That bait I left dangling for a while until I knew you had swollowed the hook by the way. You're onto a loser hook, line and sinker.

Strike one is the right expression is it not?

So in your opinion then these great men of faith have the final say over scripture? Now three flipping Popes we have? But what you say is false. Why did Calvin believe in baptising the saints children if the saints children are not elect?
God can put the elect where He pleases. Ezekiel 37:25 ...They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever.
That is a promise from God and is Calvinist so how can you say Calvin believed no such thing? Wrong you are.

Strike two I believe, on the charge of ignorance.

Election is based on the Sovereign will of God and as I said God can put the elect with whatever family He chooses to. You have been negligent with my words as I never said that election is passed on did I? Did I? Show me where I said election is based on clear observable DNA or correct what you have said please.

Strike three I think.

Good ain' I? And you, the best batter on your team, are not up to much if you don't know scripture are you, and you have proved you did not know that your God is a Despot did you? That's ignorance of the God that you claim to know. How can you not know that He is a Despot, better still The Despot of despots. You have put Jesus into a frilly apron to serve you but He is The Despot that does as He pleases just like despots do.
You are ignorant that Calvin believed in the inclusion of the saints children and their children and you with such insight into Calvinism.

What?

Why should you think I should stay consistant with Mr Spurgeon?
Eat your words time. Bon appetite!

john.

 

2 Peter 2
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

John P asks if there isn't some way to eisegete this text so that "master" can be refined as "despot" who "authors Sin" and authors the words of Satan.

Obviously eisegesis is o imaginative that it could certainly be used to do such a travesty to scripture in 2Peter 2:1 -- but most (on both sides) prefer not to use those methods as they bend and twist scripture in man varied ways without consistency!

However I am thankful to John for admitting to this flaw in his argument.

Hint for John who may be struggling with this "God is NEVER called the MASTER of the wicked OR the MASTER of Satan" Rather the wicked are said to "REJECT God's PURPOSE for them" and God calls out to them "OH WHY will you die.. AS I LIVE I have NO pleasure in the death of the Wicked" and then there is of course "IT NEVER entered my mind that they should do such things" and of course "OH HOW I WANTED... but YOU WOULD NOT"...

You know -- "Arminianism" and "My Lord My Master"

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob notes that JohnP's "GENETICS DETERMINES who is ELECT" idea is so bogus that he will need to start his own religion soon! He is not even staying consistent with his OWN affirmations of the CFS when he first reviewed it and said it was a wonderul way to show how God is a despot and WHY should anyone complain!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can I help it that you flip-flop instead of staying consisten with Spurgeon AND with your OWN "God is despot" ideas??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You yourself said his is a MODERATE Calvinism but in your rejection of the total arbitrary selection rule for election and your appeal to "genetics being the basis for election" you become the most watered down Calvinist of all.

How you have fallen my friend! You were at the very top and now you swing right off that mountaint top???!!!

What are you thinking!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob oh expansive one.

That's life I suppose. Famous for 15 minutes but it was only your estimation of me when all is said and done 'a'?

You will be seen as a twister of other peoples words if you persist. It is the Sovereign will of God that determines all things that are. Not only that but Calvin agrees with God as well so here I agree with Calvin but not with the making the baby grumpy!
Come on expert on Calvin why do you not admit a mistake and tell your audience that Calvinism is being expressed when I say my kids are safe? Or of course provide proof that you are not wrong. Can't do it can you? Quick enough when a Calvinist mis-handles Calvin or you think.

I find that hard to believe but it might be possible that I said it but very unlikely.
Spurgeon was a great orator but his oratory overthrew him on occasion. If I did, and I'm sure if this point carries on you will show me the proof, not that it is necessary, if I said he was a moderate I retract that statement as uninformative. You play the game again I see with your degrees of Calvinism. How can there be a consistant vision if some can be 'moderate'? Another loss for you. :cooler:

Seriously? I'm thinking that you have no answers and your bluster is empty and vain.

#1. Did Calvin express the belief that the Children of the Children of God are saved? Expand on this as the phrase goes please!
#2. Is God a Despot? Yes or no will do. Of course when you admit it then there is no wriggle room is there? You have described perfectly what you think of despots. You liken it to the stink that the phrase 'God Authored sin' makes. I know the smell by the way. John P asks if there isn't some way to eisegete this text so that "master" can be refined as "despot" who "authors Sin" and authors the words of Satan.

eisegete? What's that mean then? And what is a Master that buys people called? Father Christmas or something? And what of a man that owns people 'a'? Enlightened I suppose you will have it? What of a God that owns people? Owns. a travesty to scripture in 2Peter 2:1... Let me know what it's like at the bottom of the hole you dig yourself into. The Great slave Owner rules His slaves. Slaves only do their Master's bidding or have you found an hole to hide yourself in from Him? And you are trying to sell a thing that claims there are six billion sovereigns and one god who is not? HaHa! Some theology man! Yes indeed. (Good old English understatement HaHa!) A god that allows and permits slaves to control His destiny is the god of fools only and a vain imagination. Did Adam jump or was He pushed?

#1. Did Calvin express the belief that the Children of the Children of God are saved? Expand on this as the phrase goes!
#2. Is God a Despot? Yes or no will do.
#3. Is it a righteous act to accept Christ or is it not a righteous act? To accept Christ would mean that you have turned from rejection to acceptation so it is an act and that act is called repentance and repentance is righteous so you are selfrighteous aren't you, with respect.
#4. A weeping and a wringing of hands as He wrings their necks has not received an answer I see still.
#5. But He isn't the Saviour of the world is He you universalist you?

So Jesus is the Saviour of the world and the whole world's sins are atoned for REALLY!
#6. So have you done away with Hell? For man I mean.
#7. How many times have I asked you No 6?

This whimpy god thing you have control over, why wasn't he as nice to the angels as he has been to us?

#5. He has not saved the world has He? I mean has He? Yes or no.
#8. Why are we only allowed 8 smiley faces?


john.

 

John --

Before we get off on too many of your rabit trails - lets summarize the highlights of your new idea that "Genetics determines ELECTION"!!

Bob responds showing how a Calvinist rejects such “election-by-Genetics” doctrines!

</font>[/QUOTE]Then of course John “admits” that he is not about to be concerned with “inconvenient facts” from Spurgeon – not when he has a great story spinning on the line..

John then follows that stellar rocket science (as he pursues his own Calvinist shell-gaming award) with this …

Having followed John P’s shell gaming “for Calvinism” there we find he has another “twist” for us. Here John P admits that the supposed “Genetics” rule that he is making up “does not actually work in real life”!!

And “of course” John P is not going to pay attention to CAIN the son of Adam or to David’s sons and grand children that all SHOW that JohnP’s wish to eisegete Ezek 37 into claiming that election is based on genetics – can not possibly be some kind of rule in the Bible.
</font>[/QUOTE]That was some good shell-gaming John in the name of Calvinism.

I have it on file - thanks!

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. Did Calvin express the belief that the Children of the Children of God are saved? Expand on this as the phrase goes please!

The doctrine of election is already out DONE for Calvinism it is too late to try and "redefine it" in your endless-shell-gaming duck and dodge for Calvinism.

#2. You yourself claimed you do not believe that what Calvin said is the Calvinism that you believe.

Are you "flip-flopping for Calvinism" again??

In Christ,

Bob

 

No.

That is Calvinist "rationalization" trying to get the most glory for the wicked lost sinner as possible IF God's Word is to be believed. It is not really exegesis - or anything remotely like it.

Simply a bogus line of rationalizing.

What is the question? Are you asking WHY God says He is weeping or are you asking IF God is telling the truth??

1 John 4 says HE IS the Savior of the World.

Are you asking WHY God says this - or are you claiming that the despot you claim to serve is lying??

The "Atoning SACRIFICE" is completed for ALL the sins of the world (See 1John 2:2 NIV - note details)

Hell is cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev 20)

Good question. I think I have missed it.

Free will of the Angels was not impacted by the "Trickery" of the devil and by the youth of Adam and Eve. So according to Luke 12:45-49 they were more accountable.

He has done all that is needed to save the World - He has also enabled our FREE WILL so we can "choose".

Free will.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

I'm not too sure on me feet at the moment and am unsure of the intricacies of the sport, unless it's innate, but I think it a fine game as far as I know it. I shall endeavour to be the greatest exponant as you have encouraged me so much. Shall I go for it? Have I got it in me? Then I might be famous again like I was before.

#1. Did Calvin express the belief that the Children of the Children of God are saved? Expand on this as the phrase goes please!
That was my question to you. When I asked you to 'expand on this... I did not expect you to spin quite so well!
But you have confused me a bit with your answer numbers. 2 is wrong is it as it did not concern Calvin but scripture it did? posted 09 June, 2005 19:39
#1. Did Calvin express the belief that the Children of the Children of God are saved?
Your answer to this is: "The doctrine of election is already out DONE for Calvinism it is too late to try and "redefine it" in your endless-shell-gaming duck and dodge for Calvinism."
Now to me that sounds like an answer to a different question and one I'm not familiar with. When I asked you if Calvin believed in the eternal security of the believer's children I want to know if you know that Calvin did believe in the eternal security of the believer's children. Do you know if Calvin did believe in the eternal security of the believers children or not? I am not asking because I don't know I am asking because I do know and I want everybody else to know that you are wrong. This is, after all, part of the game ain't it? (Points mean prizes don't they?)

So there is no argument about whether the kids of God's kids are saved or not but whether Calvin taught that they are secure in Christ because they are the kids kids. Did he teach that or not? Don't forget I know the answer.

#1. Did Calvin express the belief that the Children of the Children of God are saved? Yes or no?

It's very kind of you friend but the credit should go to my Father. Your servant john.

 

Hello Bob.

I know how busy you are so I don't mind a short answer Bob thanks.

john.

 

Calvin denied limited atonement in a number of texts, but I think his view on "The ELECT" was much closer to Spurgeon than to your wild-eyed "Election by GENETICS" idea.

Have you found ANYONE ANYWHERE to agree with your half-baked idea?

Even Hardsheller seemed reluctant to jump onto that idea that "election is determined by GENETICS" story.

Have you had any success at all with it??

Did it work out when you viewed the life of Adam?
Noah? David? Solomon? Eli? Samuel? Hezekiah?

No?

How "surprising"

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you "flip-flopping for Calvinism" again??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are actually doing pretty well with minimal encouragement. I think it comes "naturally" to Calvinists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

#1. Did Calvin express the belief that the Children of the Children of God are saved? Yes or no?

What has that to do with the question?

HaHa! Spurgeon was a baptist man and baptists are opposed to childhood baptisms! Don't you know what you are talking about?

Half-baked idea? Mine? What half-baked idea? That Calvin baptised children in the belief they were saved? Me? My idea? This isn't about correct doctrine but whether Calvin baptised children because he believed them saved or not answer the question.

#1. Did Calvin express the belief that the Children of the Children of God are saved? Yes or no?

Yes or no?

john.

 

Calvin NEVER argued that the children and grandchildren of all the elect ARE ALSO elect!!

Period.

But even worse - you can find NO CALVINIST here to argue that same case with you!!

In Calvinism genetics has NOTHING TO DO with election!

(Just stating the "obvious" again - and you seem to love to give me the opportunity to hammer you on "obvious" points.

Much appreciated!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

He never did? That surprises me but then again he wasn't perfect was he?

Yet I'm not alone. Might be they think I'm capable enough without them but I cannot as you so easily do make up things that I do not know. I do not know why I am alone if I am but who argues your case?

No? But you said it was a promise found in the scriptures, you said that, now you deny it? Master! A great move of the shells I am in awe.
You said the promise was in the OT did you not? HaHa!

If I gave you the oppo I'd say go for it man. I also like 'a' hammering away but you hammer me on lies that have been suggested I believe in. When you can do it on what I say then you will be onto something. Then you will be a man my son.

john.

 

Hello Bob.

Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who forthwith condemn whatever their carnal sense cannot comprehend. But God furnishes us with other weapons to repress their stupidity. His holy institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation, deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only but to his seed: not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. When the infinite goodness of God is thus displayed, it, in the first place, furnishes most ample materials for proclaiming his glory, and fills pious breasts with no ordinary joy, urging them more strongly to love their affectionate Parent, when they see that, on their account, he extends his care to their posterity. I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/CalvinInfantBaptism.htm#1.

(I thank the good people of A Puritan's Mind.)

I'm a man of little faith! "...not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation.

What?

john.

 

Read it and leap parents.

RO 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

john.

 

I would like to take this oppotunity Bob of rubbing some salt into your wounds if you don't mind.
You said that Calvin leaned towards Spurgeon on infant baptism. Could you show me where this good baptist believed in infant baptism please.

The Prince! Charles H. Spurgeon.
The apostle of the Gentiles appeals to all the "saints" in "Rome," that as "dead to sin," they had been "baptized into Jesus Christ," "baptized into his death," and "buried with him by baptism into death." Their having been baptized demanded that they "should walk in newness of life." Is this applicable to infants? To the churches of Galatia he wrote, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Of the Colossians he writes, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." The last mention of baptism is by Peter, who speaks of baptism as "the answer of a good conscience toward God." Thus condemnatory of paedobaptism is the entire New Testament.
http://www.gracesermons.com/robbeeee/spurgbaptism.html

He was after all a baptist!

john.