The High Priestly Prayer

[Reynolds]

No one founds a church, builds it from the ground and calls the shots...except a person who has a controlling personality and sets up a dictatorship.
He may be honestly wanting to honor God, but his church setup will quelch the spiritual growth of his congregation by banning anyone who calls for the supremacy of Christ in all things.

Such a one ruler approach to church is a red flag for a possible cult. (Not calling your friend a cult leader, only stating that such a government is ripe for a possible cult.)

So, you think the Calvinists he kicked out were kicked out for "demanding the Supremacy of Christ in all things."? If so, that is about the most egotistical thing I have heard. If you dont teach Calvinism you are rejecting the supremacy of Christ? Yall wonder why non-cals are getting annoyed and defensive with you. If we take what you say literally, you are accusing us of being non- Christian or at least second class Christians.

 

[AustinC]

So, you think the Calvinists he kicked out were kicked out for "demanding the Supremacy of Christ in all things."? If so, that is about the most egotistical thing I have heard. If you dont teach Calvinism you are rejecting the supremacy of Christ? Yall wonder why non-cals are getting annoyed and defensive with you. If we take what you say literally, you are accusing us of being non- Christian or at least second class Christians.

Explain how one believes in the supremacy of Christ in all things, yet teaches that a man must, by their own free will, accept or reject Christ.
Can Christ be Supreme if he cannot save whom he wills, but must defer to the will or whim of men?

 

[Reynolds]

Explain how one believes in the supremacy of Christ in all things, yet teaches that a man must, by their own free will, accept or reject Christ.
Can Christ be Supreme if he cannot save whom he wills, but must defer to the will or whim of men?

Point proven. Accept Calvinism or deny the Supremacy of Christ.

 

[AustinC]

Point proven. Accept Calvinism or deny the Supremacy of Christ.

You prove no point at all. You have simply avoided the question.

Explain how one believes in the supremacy of Christ in all things, yet teaches that a man must, by their own free will, accept or reject Christ.
Can Christ be Supreme if he cannot save whom he wills, but must defer to the will or whim of men?

The question is not a Calvinist question. The question is an attribute of God question.

Feel free to say you refuse to attempt an answer, but don't be dishonest by claiming you made a point. You most certainly have not made a point.

 

[Reynolds]

You prove no point at all. You have simply avoided the question.

Explain how one believes in the supremacy of Christ in all things, yet teaches that a man must, by their own free will, accept or reject Christ.
Can Christ be Supreme if he cannot save whom he wills, but must defer to the will or whim of men?

The question is not a Calvinist question. The question is an attribute of God question.

Feel free to say you refuse to attempt an answer, but don't be dishonest by claiming you made a point. You most certainly have not made a point.

My point is proven. You plainly told me I deny the supremacy of Christ because I dont agree with you.
I could likewise, if I followed the same logic, say you reject the Supremacy of Christ because you do not believe Him able to grant man the ability to have free choice. You see Him as bound by your notions about Him.
A Sovereign King tells his servants "You are free to plant Wheat or Rye. I prefer you to Plant Wheat, but I give you the freedom to plant either that you choose." The king gave up neither his supremacy nor his sovereignty. He merely granted those subject to him a choice.

 

[AustinC]

My point is proven. You plainly told me I deny the supremacy of Christ because I dont agree with you.
I could likewise, if I followed the same logic, say you reject the Supremacy of Christ because you do not believe Him able to grant man the ability to have free choice. You see Him as bound by your notions about Him.
A Sovereign King tells his servants "You are free to plant Wheat or Rye. I prefer you to Plant Wheat, but I give you the freedom to plant either that you choose." The king gave up neither his supremacy nor his sovereignty. He merely granted those subject to him a choice.

For the third time, this is exactly what I said. That you chose to interpret what I didn't say is your problem, not mine.

Explain how one believes in the supremacy of Christ in all things, yet teaches that a man must, by their own free will, accept or reject Christ.
Can Christ be Supreme if he cannot save whom he wills, but must defer to the will or whim of men?

You have made no point at all.

 

[atpollard]

A Sovereign King tells his servants "You are free to plant Wheat or Rye. I prefer you to Plant Wheat, but I give you the freedom to plant either that you choose." The king gave up neither his supremacy nor his sovereignty. He merely granted those subject to him a choice.

An excellent rhetorical point, but those servants given the “freedom” to plant Rye are also described as “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” by the POTTER that created them. I cannot satisfactorily answer ALL of the apparent ‘free will’ verses (although some I think are clearly being misapplied), but I find some ‘monergistic’ verses that cannot be explained away without doing far greater scriptural harm ... (like the vast swaths of the New Testament only apply to Jews argument that some posit).

So I agree that COULD happen, but I do not think that scripture proves that it DID happen. Of course if Scripture was 100% clear on this subject, the matter would have been resolved centuries ago.

 

[JonC]

A better question may be if there is any here who believe that men must come to God of their own free will and apart from God drawing them.

If I understand @Reynolds position correctly he holds Christ as supreme and no one believing except it be the work of God in that man (Classic Arminianism). If so then it is pushing his position beyond appropriate bounds to suggest his view a denial of the supremacy of Christ in salvation.

Arminianism (Classic Arminianism) holds that no one is saved of their own free will but it is a work of God (see the Five Articles). The view does allow men to choose evil, but not to choose God.

 

[Reynolds]

For the third time, this is exactly what I said. That you chose to interpret what I didn't say is your problem, not mine.

Explain how one believes in the supremacy of Christ in all things, yet teaches that a man must, by their own free will, accept or reject Christ.
Can Christ be Supreme if he cannot save whom he wills, but must defer to the will or whim of men?

You have made no point at all.

You say "cannot" and "must defer". I propose neither of those positions.

 

[atpollard]

Can Christ be Supreme if he cannot save whom he wills, but must defer to the will or whim of men?

Come on, you have worded it as a “Do you still beat your wife?” sort of question.

“Can Christ be Supreme if He chooses to use men as the instrument to spread His Gospel?”

“Can Christ be Supreme if He calls the lost to “take up his yoke” rather than commanding it?”

“Can Christ be supreme if He is Creator of all that has been created (John 1) yet cannot compel all of His creation to acknowledge Him?”

“Can Christ be Supreme if he offers men a choice?”

The answer to all of the questions is YES. Ultimately, Christ IS supreme and He does choose to use men, and he does call people to take up His yoke, and He does allow men to refuse to acknowledge him (according to Romans 1, He even gives them over to a reprobate heart and mind), and even if Jesus chooses to grant mankind a choice about salvation (which I do not believe that He does ... See Eph 2:1-10), that would not diminish His Soverignty.

 

[Iconoclast]

No, that is a fallacy. It is because of God's choice and His love for His special creation that He decided to sacrifice His Son on our behalf. Man had nothing to do with that.

It is because of God's choice and His love for His special creation that God gave man the choice to choose Him out of love for Him or reject Him. Man had nothing to do with that.

God has ordained these things without man to include man to choose or reject Him.



This is inflammatory, unnecessary, and lacks a basic understanding of the positions of those with whom you disagree with.

This is not taught in scripture however.

 

[AustinC]

Come on, you have worded it as a “Do you still beat your wife?” sort of question.

“Can Christ be Supreme if He chooses to use men as the instrument to spread His Gospel?”

“Can Christ be Supreme if He calls the lost to “take up his yoke” rather than commanding it?”

“Can Christ be supreme if He is Creator of all that has been created (John 1) yet cannot compel all of His creation to acknowledge Him?”

“Can Christ be Supreme if he offers men a choice?”

The answer to all of the questions is YES. Ultimately, Christ IS supreme and He does choose to use men, and he does call people to take up His yoke, and He does allow men to refuse to acknowledge him (according to Romans 1, He even gives them over to a reprobate heart and mind), and even if Jesus chooses to grant mankind a choice about salvation (which I do not believe that He does ... See Eph 2:1-10), that would not diminish His Soverignty.

How is God supreme if he defers to the will of men so that their will can hold God back from saving?

That would go against God's nature, which is precisely why it cannot be so.

God, by His very nature, does not defer to men and wait upon them to pick while he crosses his fingers and hopes "pick me, please pick me."

So how does Supremacy work when God defers to the human will before he can act.

Enlighten me.

 

[InTheLight]

Explain how one believes in the supremacy of Christ in all things, yet teaches that a man must, by their own free will, accept or reject Christ.

Sure, the Supreme God has set up the plan of salvation. Part of that plan is that man has the responsibility to believe, i.e., "that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life."

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

"These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

So you adhere to the supremacy of Christ in all things except the part where he gives man the responsibility to believe.

 

[AustinC]

Sure, the Supreme God has set up the plan of salvation. Part of that plan is that man has the responsibility to believe, i.e., "that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life."

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

"These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

So you adhere to the supremacy of Christ in all things except the part where he gives man the responsibility to believe.

Who believes in God?

Answer: All that the Father has given to Jesus.

Your verses are wonderful expressions of God's Supremacy in causing men to believe and call upon Him.

 

[InTheLight]

Who believes in God?

Answer: All that the Father has given to Jesus.

Your verses are wonderful expressions of God's Supremacy in causing men to believe and call upon Him.

Not one wisp of a suggestion that God causes man to believe in those verses. In fact, Romans 10:9 says:

"IF you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart...you will be saved."

It's a conditional IF-THEN statement.

 

[AustinC]

Not one wisp of a suggestion that God causes man to believe in those verses. In fact, Romans 10:9 says:

"IF you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart...you will be saved."

It's a conditional IF-THEN statement.

Read the entire chapter. You'll get the whiff. Read the entire letter, the whiff will get greater. Read the entire Bible, the smell will be overpowering. God, chooses whom He wills.

Romans 10:1-21 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.” Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

 

[Iconoclast]

Again, you fail to grasp what I am saying.

I am saying Scripture is complete and perfect. It is God's revelation of Himself to man. We develop doctrine from Scripture and test that developed doctrine against the standard of Scripture.

If you believe my position that Scripture is infallible and objective, God's revelation Of Himself to us is "paganism" then that is up to you. Romans thought Christians were basically atheists as well.

But calling me names will not change my position. Scripture is objective truth because God is its Source (it is "God breathed" and not subject to man's understanding). Your insistence the dog's tail is a leg does not change the fact it still has four legs.

For me, the absolute truth of Scripture (what is written) is non-negotiable. You may favor a tradition as "your truth", but I will always insist on Scripture with our understanding secondary to God's Word.

To do otherwise just seems to elevate man over God.

I don't fail to understand what post.
You keep posting that.
I reject what you post as virtually useless, unscriptural,philosophy..
You are of course welcome to post what you want.
I am not calling you names.
I do not want to interact with people who do what you do.

 

[JonC]

I don't fail to understand what post.
You keep posting that.
I reject what you post as virtually useless, unscriptural,philosophy..
You are of course welcome to post what you want.
I am not calling you names.
I do not want to interact with people who do what you do.

No, you have failed to grasp what I post. Again, your misunderstanding is the source of our contention.

This is evident in post # 89.

I have been posting that Scripture is objective and absolute. You read my comments to indicate that "in [my] world, there is no right and wrong evidently".

The evidence of my belief (which you are arguing against for some reason) is that Scripture is objective, absolute, infallible, unchangeable, truth because Scripture is God's Word and God's revelation of Himself to man. Scripture HAS TO BE objective and absolute because of God's own nature. Scripture (what is written) is the standard to which we look - not individual interpretations of Scripture but Scripture itself.

 

[Iconoclast]

No, you have failed to grasp what I post. Again, your misunderstanding is the source of our contention.

This is evident in post # 89.

I have been posting that Scripture is objective and absolute. You read my comments to indicate that "in [my] world, there is no right and wrong evidently".

The evidence of my belief (which you are arguing against for some reason) is that Scripture is objective, absolute, infallible, unchangeable, truth because Scripture is God's Word and God's revelation of Himself to man. Scripture HAS TO BE objective and absolute because of God's own nature. Scripture (what is written) is the standard to which we look - not individual interpretations of Scripture but Scripture itself.

Your posts are not clear.
I have no reason to interact with your posts as they do not add to the discussion.

 

[JonC]

Your posts are not clear.
I have no reason to interact with your posts as they do not add to the discussion.

Odd as you seem to be the only member to have misunderstood what I posted.

I posted "Scripture is absolute, concrete, infallible, and objective truth"; "I am saying Scripture is complete and perfect. It is God's revelation of Himself to man. We develop doctrine from Scripture and test that developed doctrine against the standard of Scripture."; "For me, the absolute truth of Scripture (what is written) is non-negotiable. To do otherwise just seems to elevate man over God."

You read those words and find it unclear, interpreting it to say that "in [my] world there is no right or wrong".

What I actually posted is EXACTLY the opposite of your interpretation of what I wrote.