The Reprobate Calvinist

[Darrell C]

and the Bible is missing hundreds of names from it's genealogies, lol.

Click to expand...

So you still can't compare the genealogies and see that names are missing?

Sure, but what I can't seem to find is a direct answer to my question.

So again, please explain how you feel Scripture is missing enough names to justify 4,000-19,000 years of History?

You are the one with a dogmatic view that a 6,000 year old earth is absurd. But people are just supposed to accept your doctrine that Scripture is lacking in its genealogies by probably hundreds of generations...not names.

Moses and Aaron - Exodus 6:16-20, Numbers 26:57-59; and 1 Chronicles 6:1-3; 23:6, 12-13
With the Moses and Aaron playing such central roles in the exodus, it is not surprising that their genealogy is given four different times in the Old Testament. This genealogy serves as a striking example of telescoping a genealogy to include only the tribe, division, and clan. The genealogies defining the divisions and clans of the Levites are given in Numbers 3:17-37; 26:57-59 and 1 Chronicles 6:1-3; 23:6-23. We see from these passages that Moses and Aaron were of the tribe of Levi (the Levites), the division of Kohath (the Kohathites), and the clan of Amram (the Amramites). These genealogies were telescoped to only include the three generations needed to establish this.

That's great. Does it account for 4,000-19,000 years difference from the approximation of Ussher?

Korah – Numbers 16:1
In the second census during Israel’s desert wanderings, a few noteworthy individuals are listed along with each tribe’s genealogy. Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, the son of Levi led a rebellion against Moses during the desert wandering and was engulfed by the earth along with his followers. This genealogy specifies his clan (Izhar), division (Kohath), and tribe (Levi) and telescopes out the remaining generations between Korah and Izhar.

Dathan and Abiram – Numbers 16:1; 26:5–9
Along with Korah, Dathan and Abiram participated in the rebellion against Moses and died with him. Because of their notoriety, Dathan and Abiram are listed among the Reubenites in the second Israelite census. In this genealogy, we are given only their clan (Eliab), division (Pallu), and tribe (Reuben).

Zelophehad’s daughters – Numbers 26:28–32; 27:1
Zelophehad and his daughters are listed as noteworthy among the Manassehites in the second census of Israel. Because he had five daughters and no sons, they came to Moses about the issue of inheritance. As a result, it became law that daughters would receive the inheritance if there were no sons (Numbers 27). This genealogy (Zelophehad, son of Hepher, son of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh, son of Joseph) is analogous to the preceding examples except that one more name is included beyond the tribe (Manasseh), division (Machir), and clan (Gilead).

All very interesting, to be sure, but, I will simply reiterate this does not answer the question.

So which is it, Cassidy, you are a Calvinist or an Arminian?
Click to expand...

I am sorry I confused you by using words too big for your understanding. Let me try again. My Soteriological position (that means how people get saved) sees God as Sovereign (that is a big word that means He is in charge and control of everything) and First Mover (that means that God is the uncaused cause of all things) in the monergistic (that is a big word that means only one Person is the Author of Salvation, and that person is God) salvation of sinners.
[/QUOTE]

Is that supposed to be an answer to the question? lol

It's really very simple...are you a Calvinist or an Arminian?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I'm sorry but I can'd dumb it down any more than that.

That's for sure.

But I'm used to that by now.

If you are still confused about the big words I suggest you ask your pastor to explain them to you.

Not sure why you think using big words is going to support a doctrine that Christ I the "first to be elected."

But, hey, again...I'm used to the dumbness, lol.

If he has any theological education at all he should be able to help you.

One thing I can tell you is that he isn't going around telling people that Christ is the first of the elect, and that Mesopotamia is the most important civilization in world history, nor that Bible Writers authored revelation.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I have to admit I have a terrible character flaw.

Really it's not your character in view...it's your doctrine.

I will say your character has exhibited some rather disturbing tendencies, though.

1. I do not celebrate stupidity.

Not possible not to celebrate it when you are teaching it. They kind of go hand in hand.

2. I do not treat ignorance as if it were a virtue.

That might be true.

It calls to mind the saying, "It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

So I'll give you that one.

3. I do not suffer fools gladly.

The only people you suffer are those that accept your doctrine and practice.

Your character is weak in that you can't seem to let previous encounters go. Go back to the Creation thread and see if the character you presented in that was warranted. See if you have actually responded to the questions.

I think a primary problem you have is just identifying what a fool is. If you think that is me, that's okay, I've been called worse.

But if you cannot see an inability to support your doctrine from Scripture, and maintaining that doctrine despite being called on it is foolish, then I am very sorry for you.

And thus my "ignore" list is explained.

If that makes you feel better, have at it.


God bless.

 

[steaver]

Excellent teaching brother Darrell! You have raised numerous solid points that would need to be dealt with in this debate. Sadly, we see a response of insults rather than an honest rebuttal. Of course I doubt a constructive rebuttal could be given.... Again, great work actually doing a thorough exegesis on the topic. One of the things that I have said over and over is Calvinism totally misses the fact that Jesus Christ ushered in the New Covenant. With Calvinism it is nothing New, just the same as it has been from the garden of Eden.

 

[John Public]

I'm not making a doctrine… the Bible flat says who God first elected! The second was ancient Israel. This is all ascertained easily, peaceably. What is with these false accursers?!

kingjamesbibleonline.org. Search "elect". There are few mentions of the term.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

John 1:46-48

King James Version (KJV)

46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.


Now, unless you want to say this fellow who does not know Who Christ is regenerate, or, that the Lord is not please with Nathanael for being without guile, then you will have to cede the point, and admit defense number one is bogus.


Continued...

Obviously, Nathaniel was regenerate because he recognized the Lord Jesus as the Messiah when he met Him (John 1:49). 'For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven' (Matt. 16:17; cf. also 1 Cor. 12:3b). At what point he was regenerate is perhaps open to debate, but the fact itself is not.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

One of the things that I have said over and over is Calvinism totally misses the fact that Jesus Christ ushered in the New Covenant. With Calvinism it is nothing New, just the same as it has been from the garden of Eden.

That is not quite true. While Covenant Theology certainly sees continuity in all God's plans from eternity (Acts 15:18), there are major differences between the covenants.

The writer to the Hebrews describes the new covenant as a ‘better hope’ (7:19) and a ‘better covenant’ (7:22; 8:6. cf. 9:11). The great Puritan John Owen, in his vast commentary on Hebrews (5), listed seventeen ways in which the two covenants differ, and in each, the new is superior. I think I can do no better than to list these differences, trying to put them very briefly in my own words. [I shall refer to the Sinaitic covenant as the ‘first’ covenant because that is how the writer to the Hebrews speaks of it]

1. They differ in the time of their establishment. The first was established in the third month after the coming out from Egypt of the Israelites (Exod 19:1). The second, ‘At just the right time’ (Rom 5:6, NIV); ‘In the dispensation of the fullness of time’ (Eph 1:10). ‘When the fullness of the time was come’ (Gal 4:4). ‘When the Day of Pentecost had fully come….’ (Acts 2:1).
2. They differ in the place of their establishment. The first covenant, in Sinai; the new covenant, in Jerusalem; but in this connection it is worth reading Gal 4:24-26. Sinai represents bondage; the new Jerusalem represents freedom.
3. They differ in the manner of their promulgation (Heb 12:18-26). The first came with fire and the sound of a trumpet (Exod 19:18f); the New came with a voice from heaven (Psalm 110:4; Matt 3:17).
4. They differ in their mediators. In the first covenant , it was Moses, who was faithful as a servant (Heb 3:5); in the New, it was Christ, a Son over His own house (Heb 3:6; 2Tim 2:5).
5. They differ in their subject matter. The first covenant revived the demands of the covenant of works with Moses saying, “Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law” (Deut 27:26). In the new covenant, God’s law is written on our hearts with Christ saying, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matt 11:30), and we find ourselves saying, ‘His commandments are not grievous’ (1John 5:3, A.V.).
6. They differ in the manner of their dedication. In the first covenant, it was by the sacrifice of beasts and the blood sprinkled around the altar (Lev 8, 9). The New was confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ Himself (Heb 10:19-23; 12:24).
7. They differ in respect of the Priesthood. In the first covenant, the Priesthood was limited to Aaron and his posterity; in the New, Christ has an unchangeable priesthood in the power of an endless life (Heb 7:11-28).
8. They differ in the matter of their sacrifices and their access to God. The Aaronic high priest could enter in to the Holist Place only once a year having sacrificed for his own sins as well as those of the people; our Great High Priest had no sins of His own to atone for, but, ‘Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption’ (Heb 9:12).
9. They differ in the matter of their writing down. The first covenant was written on ‘tablets of stone,’ the New on ‘tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart’ (2Cor 3:3).
10. They differ as to their purposes. ‘The principal end of the first covenant was to discover sin, to condemn it and to set bounds to it’ (John Owen; cf. Gal 3:19). The purpose of the new covenant is to show forth God’s justice and mercy (Rom 3:26).
11. They differ in their effects. The first covenant was a ‘ministry of death’ and ‘of condemnation’ (2Cor 3:7, 9); the New gives liberty (2Cor 3:17-18).
12. They differ in the grant of the Holy Spirit. It appears that during the period of the first covenant, the Holy Spirit was indeed active, but there was so much a wide and greater effusion of His power at Pentecost, that John speaks sometimes as if He had not come before (John 7:39; 15:26 etc.).
13. They differ in the declaration made in them of the kingdom of God. The term ‘kingdom of heaven’ or ‘kingdom of God’ does not appear in the O.T. Israel under the first covenant had the appearance of a kingdom of the world (physical borders, an army, a physical temple). The kingdom of God has none of these things. The Lord Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:26). His subjects are spread throughout the earth, and have their citizenship in heaven.
14. They differ in their substance and end. The first covenant was typical, shadowy and removable. The new covenant is substantial and permanent as containing the Body, which is Christ.
15. They differ in the extent of their ministration. The first covenant was largely confined to Israel after the flesh, with darkness reigning all around. In the new covenant, we read, ‘The people walking in darkness have seen a great light’ (Isaiah 9:2).
16. They differ in efficacy. The first covenant ‘made nothing perfect’ (Heb 7:19; cf. 8:7). It gave outward commands without giving the power to perform them (cf. Acts 15:10). In the new covenant, ‘says the Lord, “I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts”’ (Heb 8:10).
17. They differ in their duration. One was to be removed; one to abide forever (Heb 10:8-9).

We see therefore that the new covenant is the outworking of all God’s plans and promises, which are seen to be ‘Yes and Amen in Christ Jesus’ (2Cor 1:20). The new covenant is in Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20) and cannot possibly fail (cf. Isaiah 42:4). It was planned and arranged in eternity, so that it is called the ‘everlasting covenant’ (Heb 13:20-21 etc.), and Christ, ‘The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ (Rev 13:8). It is the consummation of all the covenants of promise (eg. John 8:56; Acts 2:30), and ‘the end of the law (that is, its purpose and fulfillment) for righteousness to everyone who believes’ (Rom 10:40).

[BTW, wouldn't you love to be a Puritan preacher? I wonder how the congregations felt when John Owen said, "And seventeenthly........."!

 

[John Public]

Obviously, Nathaniel was regenerate because he recognized the Lord Jesus as the Messiah when he met Him (John 1:49). 'For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven' (Matt. 16:17; cf. also 1 Cor. 12:3b). At what point he was regenerate is perhaps open to debate, but the fact itself is not.

Oh, bless God someone has refuted the pharisaical rantings of Darrell C. Wednesday was supposedly his last day; I cannot say he would be much missed.

If Nathaniel believed on Christ, he is of the elect; The wind bloweth where it listeth, & thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, & whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3.8.
The spiritually dead cannot hear and are never of, were, or shall be, able, as the surrounding verses declare. And no man hath ascendeth up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven: even the Son of man which is in heaven. 3.13.
You're elected or not. I have yet to see someone take my challenge to study the word elect apart from Darrell; he essentially reviled me as a heretic. How very Christlike…

I do wonder if the Arminians can answer what Jesus was on about saying let him hear that hath ears to hear…

 

[steaver]

That is not quite true. While Covenant Theology certainly sees continuity in all God's plans from eternity (Acts 15:18), there are major differences between the covenants.

The writer to the Hebrews describes the new covenant as a ‘better hope’ (7:19) and a ‘better covenant’ (7:22; 8:6. cf. 9:11). The great Puritan John Owen, in his vast commentary on Hebrews (5), listed seventeen ways in which the two covenants differ, and in each, the new is superior. I think I can do no better than to list these differences, trying to put them very briefly in my own words. [I shall refer to the Sinaitic covenant as the ‘first’ covenant because that is how the writer to the Hebrews speaks of it]

1. They differ in the time of their establishment. The first was established in the third month after the coming out from Egypt of the Israelites (Exod 19:1). The second, ‘At just the right time’ (Rom 5:6, NIV); ‘In the dispensation of the fullness of time’ (Eph 1:10). ‘When the fullness of the time was come’ (Gal 4:4). ‘When the Day of Pentecost had fully come….’ (Acts 2:1).
2. They differ in the place of their establishment. The first covenant, in Sinai; the new covenant, in Jerusalem; but in this connection it is worth reading Gal 4:24-26. Sinai represents bondage; the new Jerusalem represents freedom.
3. They differ in the manner of their promulgation (Heb 12:18-26). The first came with fire and the sound of a trumpet (Exod 19:18f); the New came with a voice from heaven (Psalm 110:4; Matt 3:17).
4. They differ in their mediators. In the first covenant , it was Moses, who was faithful as a servant (Heb 3:5); in the New, it was Christ, a Son over His own house (Heb 3:6; 2Tim 2:5).
5. They differ in their subject matter. The first covenant revived the demands of the covenant of works with Moses saying, “Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law” (Deut 27:26). In the new covenant, God’s law is written on our hearts with Christ saying, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matt 11:30), and we find ourselves saying, ‘His commandments are not grievous’ (1John 5:3, A.V.).
6. They differ in the manner of their dedication. In the first covenant, it was by the sacrifice of beasts and the blood sprinkled around the altar (Lev 8, 9). The New was confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ Himself (Heb 10:19-23; 12:24).
7. They differ in respect of the Priesthood. In the first covenant, the Priesthood was limited to Aaron and his posterity; in the New, Christ has an unchangeable priesthood in the power of an endless life (Heb 7:11-28).
8. They differ in the matter of their sacrifices and their access to God. The Aaronic high priest could enter in to the Holist Place only once a year having sacrificed for his own sins as well as those of the people; our Great High Priest had no sins of His own to atone for, but, ‘Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption’ (Heb 9:12).
9. They differ in the matter of their writing down. The first covenant was written on ‘tablets of stone,’ the New on ‘tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart’ (2Cor 3:3).
10. They differ as to their purposes. ‘The principal end of the first covenant was to discover sin, to condemn it and to set bounds to it’ (John Owen; cf. Gal 3:19). The purpose of the new covenant is to show forth God’s justice and mercy (Rom 3:26).
11. They differ in their effects. The first covenant was a ‘ministry of death’ and ‘of condemnation’ (2Cor 3:7, 9); the New gives liberty (2Cor 3:17-18).
12. They differ in the grant of the Holy Spirit. It appears that during the period of the first covenant, the Holy Spirit was indeed active, but there was so much a wide and greater effusion of His power at Pentecost, that John speaks sometimes as if He had not come before (John 7:39; 15:26 etc.).
13. They differ in the declaration made in them of the kingdom of God. The term ‘kingdom of heaven’ or ‘kingdom of God’ does not appear in the O.T. Israel under the first covenant had the appearance of a kingdom of the world (physical borders, an army, a physical temple). The kingdom of God has none of these things. The Lord Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:26). His subjects are spread throughout the earth, and have their citizenship in heaven.
14. They differ in their substance and end. The first covenant was typical, shadowy and removable. The new covenant is substantial and permanent as containing the Body, which is Christ.
15. They differ in the extent of their ministration. The first covenant was largely confined to Israel after the flesh, with darkness reigning all around. In the new covenant, we read, ‘The people walking in darkness have seen a great light’ (Isaiah 9:2).
16. They differ in efficacy. The first covenant ‘made nothing perfect’ (Heb 7:19; cf. 8:7). It gave outward commands without giving the power to perform them (cf. Acts 15:10). In the new covenant, ‘says the Lord, “I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts”’ (Heb 8:10).
17. They differ in their duration. One was to be removed; one to abide forever (Heb 10:8-9).

We see therefore that the new covenant is the outworking of all God’s plans and promises, which are seen to be ‘Yes and Amen in Christ Jesus’ (2Cor 1:20). The new covenant is in Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20) and cannot possibly fail (cf. Isaiah 42:4). It was planned and arranged in eternity, so that it is called the ‘everlasting covenant’ (Heb 13:20-21 etc.), and Christ, ‘The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ (Rev 13:8). It is the consummation of all the covenants of promise (eg. John 8:56; Acts 2:30), and ‘the end of the law (that is, its purpose and fulfillment) for righteousness to everyone who believes’ (Rom 10:40).

[BTW, wouldn't you love to be a Puritan preacher? I wonder how the congregations felt when John Owen said, "And seventeenthly........."!

Amen! Now when did this New Covenant begin?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

See my point 1 above.
In point of time it was on the day of Pentecost. In the mind of God, it was in eternity.

 

[Don]

John - I don't usually participate in these debates because they're typically just opportunities for each side to say how wrong the other is, and quickly degenerate into ad hominems.

Here's the answer to your last question: True arminians don't argue election, and embrace election. The point of debate is the definition and usage of "election." Whether you're saved because you were elected, or elected because you're saved.

And with that, I quietly withdraw.

 

[John Public]

John - I don't usually participate in these debates because they're typically just opportunities for each side to say how wrong the other is, and quickly degenerate into ad hominems.

Here's the answer to your last question: True arminians don't argue election, and embrace election. The point of debate is the definition and usage of "election." Whether you're saved because you were elected, or elected because you're saved.

And with that, I quietly withdraw.

Wisely have you spoken, Don, but the problem the arminians have is that they still debate what a shoe is while wearing one; the Calvinist position is also problematic because of some of Calvin's views. For example, Calvin believed the saint would forcibly repent of sins before death. He too believed in a general atonement—and taught it— thereby making himself a back-door arminian.
There is nothing in the Bible to imply or even state such is possible.

It would be profitable, Don, for you to "Unwatch" this thread if you are to bow out.

 

[John Public]

Amen! Now when did this New Covenant begin?

Hebrews is not cryptic. Jesus died. Blood shed. Mercy seat saturated in blood, Jesus had completed what Moses' blood & goats failed to do- sufficiently atone for the elect's sins,lacking the atonement of dishonorable vessels, ordained of old time to condemnation, as Romans, James, Peter, in addition to Jude say. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Hebrews-9-15_9-18/


However, that is the Testament. The New Covenant began at John according to Jesus, who fufilled the law, Luke 24,
Matthew 5.17-18.

 

[Rippon]

Calvin believed the saint would forcibly repent of sins before death.

Don't just toss something out there and expect us to believe it. Document.

He too believed in a general atonement—and taught it—

That is up for debate. But the consensus among Calvin scholars is that he did not hold to G.A. at all when you read his works in context. Review the well-researched views of Jonathan Rainbow, Paul Helm and Roger Nicole

thereby making himself a back-door arminian.

You don't know what you're talking about JP.

 

[kyredneck]

You don't know what you're talking about JP.

There's something real familiar about 'JP'.

 

[steaver]

See my point 1 above.
In point of time it was on the day of Pentecost. In the mind of God, it was in eternity.

In the mind of God everything is in eternity. So did God make Adam sin so He sent Jesus Christ, or did God know Adam would sin so He sent Jesus Christ.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In the mind of God everything is in eternity. So did God make Adam sin so He sent Jesus Christ, or did God know Adam would sin so He sent Jesus Christ.

Wow! The old Lapsarian question; infra or supra? I'll tell you how I see it and you can decide which I am.

If it's not too dreadfully blasphemous to claim to know the mind of God in eternity, I see the Trinity saying amongst themselves, "We shall make Man, not as a mere cipher, but with free will (yes, really!), but when we do that, we foresee that he will abuse that privilege and fall into sin. His will, which was previously free, will become enslaved to sin and he will come under our righteous anger. Nevertheless, for our own high purposes we shall make him that way, and we shall provide a Saviour for a vast crowd of hell-deserving sinners, so great that no man may number it, whom He shall redeem at measureless cost so that we may be just and the justifier of the one who trusts in Christ."

There you are; my head is now on the block and you may chop it off at will.

 

[John Public]

There's something real familiar about 'JP'.

You're point is what, and what does it have to do with our conversation here?

 

[steaver]

Wow! The old Lapsarian question; infra or supra? I'll tell you how I see it and you can decide which I am.

If it's not too dreadfully blasphemous to claim to know the mind of God in eternity, I see the Trinity saying amongst themselves, "We shall make Man, not as a mere cipher, but with free will (yes, really!), but when we do that, we foresee that he will abuse that privilege and fall into sin. His will, which was previously free, will become enslaved to sin and he will come under our righteous anger. Nevertheless, for our own high purposes we shall make him that way, and we shall provide a Saviour for a vast crowd of hell-deserving sinners, so great that no man may number it, whom He shall redeem at measureless cost so that we may be just and the justifier of the one who trusts in Christ."

There you are; my head is now on the block and you may chop it off at will.

So God can foresee Adam sinning and thus providing a solution, but cannot foresee a person having faith and providing a solution?

 

[steaver]

Wow! The old Lapsarian question; infra or supra? I'll tell you how I see it and you can decide which I am.

If it's not too dreadfully blasphemous to claim to know the mind of God in eternity, I see the Trinity saying amongst themselves, "We shall make Man, not as a mere cipher, but with free will (yes, really!), but when we do that, we foresee that he will abuse that privilege and fall into sin. His will, which was previously free, will become enslaved to sin and he will come under our righteous anger. Nevertheless, for our own high purposes we shall make him that way, and we shall provide a Saviour for a vast crowd of hell-deserving sinners, so great that no man may number it, whom He shall redeem at measureless cost so that we may be just and the justifier of the one who trusts in Christ."

There you are; my head is now on the block and you may chop it off at will.

What you are doing brother is trying to have it both ways. What I hear over and over again from Calvinist when we speak of freewill is "God is Sovereign". So either you must stick with the God is Sovereign and man never ever had freewill or a Sovereign God can certainly give man a freewill.