The High Priestly Prayer

[JonC]

What continues to be disputed are the words on the page, not their "interpretation".

How we handle those words is on us, not on the Lord.
We can either believe everything He says ( because we trust it as the truth ), or we, as professing believers, can do as Thomas Jefferson did...

Only without the scissors.

Again, we see a difference, Jon.

To me, human philosophy has no place in a discussion among believers.
Toss it out the window, and trust the Lord ( Proverbs 3:5-6 ).

If you think philosophy has any place in understanding God's words, we will always disagree.

There is an issue here.

I believe that God's Word is absolute, but at the same time I understand that we reason through Scripture. The bible even acknowledges this when it refers to the worship of the Jews and Gentiles, and when Scripture commands not to judge Another's servants. People have different understandings, but there is only one truth.

I do take issue with Calvinists who speak out against philosophy because Calvinism is a product of Systematic Theology. The issue at its core was divine predestination in salvation and James Arminius' rejection of the teaching. Calvinism is just as dependent on philosophy as it is Scripture because those questions are philosophical questions (not biblical ones). Calvinism looks at God electing men either prior to the Fall or out of fallen men (both philosophical arguments with philosophical consequences). Calvinism explores man's will VS God's will in salvation (a philosophical exercise). Calvinism assumes specific philosophical ideas about justice and applies this to divine justice.

This does not make Calvinism wrong.

We cannot escape philosophy. What we need to do is keep it Christian. But we also have to realize that now we see through the glass dimly. We need not to lean on our own understanding.

Those who cannot recognize the philosophy in their own understanding are blind to Scripture (they are unable to distinguish between Scripture and their understanding of Scripture).

 

[InTheLight]

[Would you people that insist on using colored fonts please stop it? Many people read the forum on their phone or tablet in dark mode and when you post in colored fonts your text is virtually unreadable.]

Carry on.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Reynolds]

This entire discussion reminds me of why I have become disillusioned with the New Calvinists. Calvinists forever have co-existed. The new breed is set on conversion to Calvinism or bust. A preacher I know (who is quite Calvinistic himself) recently told me that he kicked several Calvinist seminary students out of his church. He said the "New Calvinists are more concerned about converting people to Calvin than winning people to Christ; I am sick of them."

 

[Dave G]

Calvinism is just as dependent on philosophy as it is Scripture because those questions are philosophical questions (not biblical ones).

They are biblical and doctrinal questions, not philosophical ones.

For example, "why does one believe on Christ and another does not?".
This isn't "philosophy", its a question that can and does get answered by Scripture...

Acts of the Apostles 13:48, John 10:26, John 6:64-65, John 8:43-47, John 17:2, Romans 8:28-30, 1 Corinthians 1:18, 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.

Calvinism looks at God electing men either prior to the Fall or out of fallen men (both philosophical arguments with philosophical consequences).

Again, I don't know what you are referring to when you call it "Calvinism", as I call it "The Bible".
Scripture provides the answer, and its far from "philosophical":

Election prior to the Fall:

" according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." ( Ephesians 1:4-6 ).

No philosophy, just a straight-out Scriptural answer.
The words mean what they say.

There's no philosophy involved in the slightest degree.

 

[Dave G]

Calvinism explores man's will VS God's will in salvation (a philosophical exercise).

Again, Scripture has the answer, not what you call "Calvinism".
Not only is that answer to this question contained in the passage I quoted above, it's contained here:

" But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." ( John 1:12-13 ).

" Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." ( James 1:18 ).

" not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." ( Titus 3:5-6 ).

See?
No philosophy whatsoever.

Easy, wasn't it?

We cannot escape philosophy.

Sure we can.

We simply believe God at His word, and toss out our own preconceptions...
Letting His word answer any questions and change our way of thinking.

We need not to lean on our own understanding.

Agreed.
Which is why we let God's word answer the questions, thereby deriving our doctrines from it.

Those who cannot recognize the philosophy in their own understanding are blind to Scripture (they are unable to distinguish between Scripture and their understanding of Scripture).

Again, I agree, and most wholeheartedly.

 

[JonC]

They are biblical questions.

For example, "why does one believe and another does not?".
This isn't "philosophy", its a question that can and does get answered by Scripture...

Acts of the Apostles 13:48, John 10:26, John 6:64-65, John 17:2, Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.

Again, I don't know what you are referring to when you call it "Calvinism", as I call it "The Bible".
Scripture provides the answer, and its far from "philosophical":

Election prior to the Fall:

" according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." ( Ephesians 1:4-6 ).

No philosophy, just a straight-out Scriptural answer.
The words mean what they say.

There's no philosophy involved in the slightest degree.

Again, Scripture has the answer, not what you call "Calvinism".
Not only is that answer to this question contained in the passage I quoted above, it's contained here:

" But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." ( John 1:12-13 ).

" Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." ( James 1:18 ).

" not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." ( Titus 3:5-6 ).

See?
No philosophy whatsoever.

Easy, wasn't it?

Sure we can.

We simply believe God at His word, and toss out our own preconceptions...
Letting His word answer any questions and change our way of thinking.

Agreed.
Which is why we let God's word answer the questions, thereby deriving our doctrines from it.


Again, I agree, and most wholeheartedly.

No. Scripture centers on Christ. He (Christ) is God's fullest revelation of Himself to man.

Calvinism is centered on responding to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance.

Arminius stumbled over the philosophy of the "problem" of evil and predestination.

The Five Points of Calvinism were rebuttals of the Five Articles.

It is philosophy (perhaps Christian philosophy but philosophy nonetheless).

Scripture never asks "for whom did Christ die" in the scope of limited atonement (although dying for the sheep is affirmed). Scripture never deals with the "elect" except from the standpoint of those already "in Christ".

 

[Particular]

This entire discussion reminds me of why I have become disillusioned with the New Calvinists. Calvinists forever have co-existed. The new breed is set on conversion to Calvinism or bust. A preacher I know (who is quite Calvinistic himself) recently told me that he kicked several Calvinist seminary students out of his church. He said the "New Calvinists are more concerned about converting people to Calvin than winning people to Christ; I am sick of them."

Sounds like that pastor has far too much power in his congregation.

I have no idea what "New Calvinist" means or what conversion to Calvinism means.
Were these seminary students insistent upon the preeminence and supremacy of God over all things? Were they demanding that such preeminence and supremacy be taught from the pulpit?

Is this pastor a tyrant bully who has authority to accept or reject anyone based on his own whim? Is there no elder board or congregational intervention in the actions of the pastor?

Perhaps you were just expressing the process of the entire board when you stated the Pastor kicked them out. If you would, please clarify as your initial statement makes the pastor out to be a bully.

 

[Dave G]

No. Scripture centers on Christ. He (Christ) is God's fullest revelation of Himself to man.

I disagree.
Scripture centers on every word, which includes Jesus Christ.

Calvinism is centered on responding to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance.

"TULIP" was derived from Scripture, not an answer to the Five Articles.

Those Five Articles were in response to the Belgic Confession.
Round and round we go.

Scripture never asks "for whom did Christ die" in the scope of limited atonement (although dying for the sheep is affirmed). Scripture never deals with the "elect" except from the standpoint of those already "in Christ".

Again, we see the answer, and I've already posted the relevant Scriptures.

We both have the Holy Spirit, right?
We're both able to look at the words on the page and come to the same understanding, right?

Wrong.
Therein is the problem, Jon.

This keeps going, and we keep wrangling with what is written, don't we?

 

[JonC]

Again, Scripture has the answer, not what you call "Calvinism".
Not only is that answer to this question contained in the passage I quoted above, it's contained here:

" But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." ( John 1:12-13 ).

" Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." ( James 1:18 ).

" not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." ( Titus 3:5-6 ).

See?
No philosophy whatsoever.

Easy, wasn't it?

Sure we can.

We simply believe God at His word, and toss out our own preconceptions...
Letting His word answer any questions and change our way of thinking.

Agreed.
Which is why we let God's word answer the questions, thereby deriving our doctrines from it.


Again, I agree, and most wholeheartedly.

I agree. Scripture is very plain (and both Calvinists and Arminians affirm that same passage).

If we lay aside philosophy we can be united in Scripture. It's the interpretation that divides.

 

[Dave G]

Scripture is very plain (and both Calvinists and Arminians affirm that same passage).

No, they do not.

If we lay aside philosophy we can be united in Scripture. It's the interpretation that divides.

No it is not.
The very words divide:

" For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." ( Hebrews 4:12 ).

" Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes [shall be] they of his own household." ( Matthew 10:34-36 ).

 

[JonC]

.
"TULIP" was derived from Scripture, not an answer to the Five Articles.

No. The Five Points were direct responses to the Five Articles. The Belgic Confession discussed expressed the root contention (among other things) that would become the Five Articles but during Arminius life he was deemed in compliance with orthodox Calvinism.

Are you unable to realize the Christian philosophy involved in the Belgic Confession?

I am not saying this makes it wrong, but to remove reasoning, philosophy and the human mind from doctrinal development is to make a god out of man.

 

[Dave G]

Are you unable to realize the Christian philosophy involved in the Belgic Confession?

We're wandering.

Scripture provides the answers to every question about salvation, Jon.
No philosophical argument needs to be made.
Simply reading and believing the words on the page are all that it takes.

This "High Priestly Prayer" is a good example of just how many on this board have trouble determining who it is speaking with reference to.

Not everyone can read and understand the Scriptures, and not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven ( Matthew 7:21-23 ).
Not everyone who thinks that they have the Holy Spirit, actually does, Jon.

That, in and of itself should cause anyone reading this to examine themselves, whether they be in the faith or not.

 

[JonC]

No, they do not.

No it is not.
The very words divide:

" For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." ( Hebrews 4:12 ).

Lets find out. I only know of one Arminian here and a a couple of non- Calvinists. Let's ask them.

@Reynolds, holding Classical Arminianism do you reject John 1, James 1, and Titus 3?

@Revmitchell, rejecting Calvinism, do you also reject John 1, James 1, and Titus 3?

Or do you reject the Calvinistic interpretation of those passages along with the Calvinistic philosophies associated with that position?

I ask because a member here has claimed that you do not reject their interpretation but Scripture itself.

 

[Reynolds]

Sounds like that pastor has far too much power in his congregation.

I have no idea what "New Calvinist" means or what conversion to Calvinism means.
Were these seminary students insistent upon the preeminence and supremacy of God over all things? Were they demanding that such preeminence and supremacy be taught from the pulpit?

Is this pastor a tyrant bully who has authority to accept or reject anyone based on his own whim? Is there no elder board or congregational intervention in the actions of the pastor?

Perhaps you were just expressing the process of the entire board when you stated the Pastor kicked them out. If you would, please clarify as your initial statement makes the pastor out to be a bully.

He is definitely not a "bully". He has a board of elders, but he founded the church and built it from the ground up. He calls the shots. The ones he kicked out were pressing him to teach Calvinism.

 

[JonC]

We're wandering.

Scripture provides the answers to every question about salvation, Jon.
No philosophical argument needs to be made.
Simply reading and believing the words on the page are all that it takes.

However, not everyone can read and understand the Scriptures, and not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven ( Matthew 7:21-23 ).
Not everyone who thinks that they have the Holy Spirit, actually does, Jon.

That, in and of itself should cause anyone reading this to examine themselves, whether they be in the faith or not.

You are right... We are wandering off topic.

Are you claiming that only Calvinists are saved, that those who reject Calvinism are the ones to whom Christ referred as never known?

 

[Reynolds]

Lets find out. I only know of one Arminian here and a a couple of non- Calvinists. Let's ask them.

@Reynolds, holding Classical Arminianism do you reject John 1, James 1, and Titus 3?

@Revmitchell, rejecting Calvinism, do you also reject John 1, James 1, and Titus 3?

Or do you reject the Calvinistic interpretation of those passages along with the Calvinistic philosophies associated with that position?

I ask because a member here has claimed that you do not reject their interpretation but Scripture itself.

I simply reject the Calvinistic interpretation of those Scriptures.

 

[Dave G]

Lets find out.

Let's find out, Jon.
According to Scripture, why does one believe on Christ, and another does not?

" Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" ( John 10:24-27 ).

Answered without philosophy.

 

[Dave G]

Are you claiming that only Calvinists are saved,

No.
Once again I think you are misunderstanding the problem.

it's not about "systematic theologies", and it never was.

that those who reject Calvinism are the ones to whom Christ referred as never known?

That those who reject God's words are not saved, Jon.

" Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God." ( John 8:43-47 )

Those that are not His sheep will not "hear" His voice.

It's very plainly stated.
No philosophy involved.

 

[JonC]

Let's find out, Jon.

According to Scripture, why does one believe on Christ, and another does not?

" Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" ( John 10:24-27 ).

Answered without philosophy.

Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

 

[Dave G]

Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

Exactly.