The Sovereign Lord

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dustin quoted Luther: "“It is better to think of church in the ale-house than to think of the ale-house in church.”

Here's one from Calvin who quoted Augustine: "While the precepts of God were neglected, prejudice everywhere prevailed to such an extent that he who touched the ground barefoot during his octave was censured more severly than he who buried his wits in wine." (Inst.4/13)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BobRyan:

"But the DISTINCTIVE is that the Arminian position admits to the Bible truth that though ALL ARE DRAWN not ALL are regenerate for in the drawing is the ENABLING to CHOOSE - but in the choosing not ALL decide to open he door."

GE:

What distinctive nonsense!
Where is it "the Bible truth that ALL ARE DRAWN"?
Most people born, living or dead, never even heard of Jesus Christ. They could only be 'drawn' through the knowledge of Him that comes by the hearing of Him through the preaching of Him. Very few ever hear, to start with. Jesus in fact stated that "many" -- not "ALL" -- are "called"; and from these few 'many' that actually heard, a small 'many', are called, from whom even a smaller "few are chosen".
"In the drawing is the ENABLING to CHOOSE" -- That, distinctively, is NOT Arminianism; it's distinctively 'Calvinism'. You don't even know your own school!

If you did not say, "but", you would have been right, that "... in the choosing not ALL decide to open the door". For in unregenerate man's natural 'choosing', he cannot, but decide not to, 'open the door'. He shall refuse to. Only if "in the drawing is the ENABLING to CHOOSE" for Christ or for to 'open the door', the regenerate, shall, and won't be able otherwise than to, 'open the door'.

ALL are regenerate for

 

[BobRyan]

GE:

What distinctive nonsense!
Where is it "the Bible truth that ALL ARE DRAWN"?

Read your Bible sir. Less smoke - more fire please.

John 12:32 "I will draw ALL unto Me".

Be convicted. Accept the Word of God.

GE

Most people born, living or dead, never even heard of Jesus Christ. They could only be 'drawn' through the knowledge of Him that comes by the hearing of Him through the preaching of Him.

Sadly this is the response of most Calvinists who quoting Romans 10 have apparently never read it - and studied it closely for it is IN ROM 10 that we find that it is NATURE and the voice of nature "going out to the whole earth" that is the WITNESS that ALL have HEARD!

"SURELY they have never heard HAVE THEY? INDEED they have for ..." you might want keep reading at that point sir.

"In the drawing is the ENABLING to CHOOSE" -- That, distinctively, is NOT Arminianism; it's distinctively 'Calvinism'.

Wrong - that part is common to both.

Less smoke - more fire sir. Read your Bible.

GE

. Only if "in the drawing is the ENABLING to CHOOSE" for Christ or for to 'open the door', the regenerate, shall, and won't be able otherwise than to, 'open the door'.

ALL are regenerate for

This is perhaps the wildest claim of all made by Calvinism -- in Rev 3 the sinner is alone on the inside and Christ stands outside - the Calvinist claims that WITHOUT Christ there is REGENERATION!

How sad!

How instructive for all who hear them!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"GOD, is not willing that any should PERISH" -- what a difference from: quoting BobRyan: "God is not WILLING that ANY should perish".

See the difference? It's huge and absolute!

#1. I see smoke in your case - but as usual no fire.
#2. I see no punctuation at all in the Greek.

I see me having to continually state the obvious when responding to your posts. Go for something substantive please.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I was talking about those who are unchurched. The "people in a remote jungle" who live and die and never hear of Jesus Christ. I was pondering why that is.

Indeed - but you are adding another variable in the equation that is not needed for the problem of Calvinism exists INSIDE the church NOT just between those who have heard and joined a church and those who have never entered a church or heard the gospel from the pulpit. The point is that even among those who HAVE joined a church CAlivnism will argue the SAME case of one being innexplicably directed destined for hell without rescue -- and another arbitrarily selected for heaven. There is no difference in calvinism between the arbitrary selection principle that happens INSIDE the church from the one that happens BETWEEN the churched and the unchurhed.

If God draws all men in the way you say, then why do some not hear the Gospel?

This is the "Surely they have never heard have they?" Question listed in Romans 10 AND ANSWERED in Romans 10.

I'm not trying to debate anything on the issue, I was genuinly wondering. I have ideas about it, but I just don't know enough to make a concrete statement, so I left it all up in the air so to speak. I would have to answer that by saying if some live and die without hearing the Gospel, then that is God's purpose (which I have no right to protest anyway). But other than that, I have nothing else.

And I would say that your response - your solution is the same one you would give for the question about why some INSIDE the church are selected and others are not -- is that not also true?

My reason for pointing this out is that some may choose to reject the solution God provides in Romans 10 and Romans 2 for the unchurched population of mankind out in a remote jungle. Since the real basic problem for "some selected and some not" also exists inside the church - I simply wanted to avoid an added layer of disputes over God's solution for the unchurched.

Problem resolution - isolate an independant aspect of the problem - come up with a solution - go on to the next layer of a complex problem.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Great question! About Unconditional Election, this particualar aspect is an eternal decree. Quite simply, God knows whom He has chosen, we do not. It is very safe to say that there are people in churches where the Gospel is not being preached, no sacraments administered, faithful biblical exposition going on, that at some point before they die, will be moved away from such teaching and believe the true Gospel and be saved.


Conversly, there are those who are in very conservative, Bible believing churches that administer the sacraments and hear solid, sound, teaching every Lord's Day that will, at some point before they die, turn away from the faith completely.

Now, if you look at these people in thier present state, it's safe to say you would assume that the outcome would be the opposite from what I just described. But we don't know for sure.

In Matt 7 Christ said "MANY" are going by the way of the door that leads to hell and FEW going by the gate that leads to heaven. Christ was not speaking to the Philistines - but to the chosen people of God at the time.

And in the end-game those who are out - say "Lord Lord did we not do (all these works) IN YOUR NAME?". It is clearly the CHURCHED that are seen to be among those who in the end are lost. Christ does not say "no because you did not say the right words, use the right sacraments, hold your mouth right when you said LORD LORD" - Thus Christ does not condemn their doctrine He condemns their PRACTICE.

And that would apply to ALL churches in all denominations today.

But, I believe that the outcome of those peoples lives would be exactly according to God's eternal decree of election. God has mercy on whom He has mercy, God hardens whomever He will harden. We do not know who the chosen are, God does. Predestination, election and the like seem unfair to us. They seemed unfair to me at one time, but it's in the Bible, I must accept it.

You have accepted a false view of it. One that blames God IN SUBSTANCE by SHOWING that the difference between the saved and the lost is a difference IN GOD not in man. THEN you add to that the innexplicable logic "but God is so big and dictatorial that he will not allow himself to be blamed or held accountable for what we claim HE has done!"

That kind of logic has got to be blindly ignored in order to hold it for very long.

Don't think that I am being cold, or unloving, because as much as I might come off being that way, it's not intended.

Agreed. The Calvinist model SHOWS God to be arbitrarily uncaring about the MANY of Matt 7 - But the Calvinist himself is often far more caring and loving in the case of the unsaved (especially if that unsaved one is in his own sphere as family or friend) than he claims God is toward the lost.

As you admit - it strikes your as unfair and unkind of God - but you train yourself to turn a blind eye to it and accept it. In Calvinism the "solution" is simply not to look at the lost - just look at the saved and be thankful.

Indeed, considering our sinfulness, and God's holiness, it is a wonder why He chose to save ANY of us. God loves his creation, no doubt about that. I believe God loves His WHOLE creation. But not the same way He loves a believer in Christ.

Clearly the DIFFERENCE is not in mankind - but in GOD who arbitrarily decides to love one in a way that saves and another in some pointless way that condemns to hell without rescue.

And as you have admitted - the solution is to focus on the saved and marvel that God would love at all!!

In Romans 8 it says that God foreknows us. What does that mean? Not that He simply knew that at some point in the future we would become Christians,

No - it actually says "WHOM He foreknows" and the obvious scope for that is that God foreknows ALL. Nothing is hid from his knowledge.

Dustin
Now of course, God forknew everything. He foreknew those who would be saved and those who would be damned.

You have stated it well - and that point is what you are ignoring in Romans 8 "Whom He foreknew".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If you refuse to look at Bible passages in context then I refuse to answer every single argument you present. These issues have been dealt with munerous time by me and the other Calvinists on the board.

I can certainly complain that Calvinists do not take scripture in context so refuse to respond to Calvinist arguments. But that non-starter is kind of pointless on a discussion board - so I don't use it.

. I will not waste my time with your Arminian strawmen. It is one thing to have a healthy edifying discussion of bible doctrine and it is another to sift through your usual screen of ad hominem and bunk arguments to make a valid point.

You are using ad hominem in that post sir - I am not.

Just stating the obvious.

By the way, God is not partial to Jews only, as the context of Romans 2 states if you read the verse before it.

If you read the chapter it is easily shown that God shows the difference between the lost and the saved for BOTH Jew AND Gentile and God claims that the difference IS NOT GOD! That is a devastating argument made in scripture that totally debunks Calvinism's claim that the DIFFERENCE IS God!

Romans 2 is a good chapter for Calvinists to avoid.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I can't believe I skipped over this part --
Quote:

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Clearly the fact that ALL do NOT come to repentance is not the FAULT of God (as Calvinism so often likes to imagine) in not WILLING sufficiently.

In Christ,

Bob

Dustin said

Exactly, it's because man sinned and stands guilty. God is not willing that any should perish but God is just and must punish sin. Sin consumes the heart of a man, so that he desires sin. He will not desire God. He desires to gratify his sinful nature.

As you have already admitted - God Loves those whom He decides to zap with salvation better/differently than He cares about those whom He does not arbitrarily select. The difference is NOT in the lost state of humanity according to Calvinism for ALL are lost. The DIFFERENCE in Calvinism is always attributed to God -- not man.

Calvinism is then stuck trying not to BLAME God for what it claims God did -- i.e arbitrary selection.

You have already posted that you see it - it looks unfair to you but you successfully convince yourself to ignore it.

In christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Dustin - this is not going to be an easy discussion for you - as the Bible will be shown repeatedly to debunk the false teachings of Calvinism AND WILL show that God "SO LOVED THE WORLD that HE gave" -- yes really. It will show that HE IS NOT WILLING for ANY to Perish -- and that this is not simply "word gaming" by God nor "False marketing" it is actually true. And that really causes the Calvinist argument to choke.

Just when Calvinism wants to argue a cold heartless arbitrary selection when it comes to the lost -- God will say "He is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR SINS and NOT for our sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2.

Just when Calvinism will want to argue "God did NOT send his son to be the savior of the WORLD" -- God will say "God sent His Son to be the savior of the WORLD" 1John 4:10-14.

So as we unfold the stark contrast between the pure Bible view of God vs Calvinism you will be asked to admit to "God who IS LOVE" rather than "God who IS arbitrary" -- don't fight it for how in the world can this be bad for you? Where does this damage or threaten you in any way? Rather it is GOOD for you AND for all those you care about.

In Romans 2 God argues that HE IS NOT partial - arbitrary and biased -- Just when Calvinism wants to argue "arbitrary selection".

It is so funny that Arminians will argue the point with Calvinists that God DOES love them AND ALL their family an loved ones. Calvinists will then get hot under the collar and insult the Arminians for saying such a thing. They will insist rather that God arbitrarily selects -- chooses and picks between them and their family members -- who to love and who to toss into the torture flames for all eternity. They willl then be dismissive and harsh towards any Arminian that would dare highlight the Bible truths that debunk that harsh view of God.

This is not an ad hominem - it is simply stating objective facts about the system of teaching known as CalvinISM and noting that in these discsussions CalvinISTS will sometimes get hot under the collar when it is claimed that God actually DOES Love ALL without an arbitrary selection process or partiality loving some BETTER than others.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Dustin]

Bob, I really want to discuss this issue with you, very plainly. I can't reply to every single thing you post, though I really do want to. I'm not that patient, and I really don't have enough time. Perhaps we could take it more slowly and explore each point more fully. Run with one aspect as far as it can go and then start another.

I think this is pretty fair and I think it would make it more edifying for you and I and the others who read this. I think it also has the potential to go for a very very long time. We could make a few rules, like no more than two consecutive unanswered posts one the other's posts. It's a whole lot easier to keep up that way, at least for me.

And it wouldn't just have to be me and you debating, others could chime in, or bring up a certain aspect of the point being discussed.

How's that?

Let me know.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

P.S. I think that statements of beliefs on certain doctrines would be in order, so that you and I would definatly and surely know where each other stand, so we don't end up running around in circles or beating strawmen, as is often the case. I'll read up on Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism, so I know where YOU stand, and you can read up on Reformed theology so you can know MY stance. This is just an effort to get things to go as smoothly as possible.

 

[DQuixote]

Dustin, with regard to my original question, I read every word, noted every comma, semi-colon, period, etc., in your responses. Thanks very much. Although you and I disagree (I'm not Reformed) I now understand things more clearly. Super!

I'll stay out of the long-winded exchanges ---- I agree with you that there has to be more order so that those of us who try to follow along don't get worn out under a flurry of topics and hop-scotch responses.

One thing in passing, then I'll shut up. It is beyond me how a Reformed Theologian and an SDAer can compare notes!!

:laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I really want to discuss this issue with you, very plainly. I can't reply to every single thing you post, though I really do want to. I'm not that patient, and I really don't have enough time. Perhaps we could take it more slowly and explore each point more fully. Run with one aspect as far as it can go and then start another.

That is fine with me sir.

I think this is pretty fair and I think it would make it more edifying for you and I and the others who read this. I think it also has the potential to go for a very very long time. We could make a few rules, like no more than two consecutive unanswered posts one the other's posts. It's a whole lot easier to keep up that way, at least for me.

One qualifier -- my "style" is to respond to each and every point raised. But I don't like posting long posts answering mega points raised so I chop them up for readibility.

Some others here will try to gloss over inconvenient points and look for areas that are more to their liking to respond to - or simply respond ad hominem with "nothing at all" in the post. My values do not allow me to do that.

Having said that -- I am more than happy to "wait" once a complete response is posted - until you state that you have had time to create your own complete response. I don't want to lose track of the things that are put out on the table any more than you do.

And it wouldn't just have to be me and you debating, others could chime in, or bring up a certain aspect of the point being discussed.

How's that?

That works for me as well.

P.S. I think that statements of beliefs on certain doctrines would be in order, so that you and I would definatly and surely know where each other stand, so we don't end up running around in circles or beating strawmen, as is often the case. I'll read up on Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism, so I know where YOU stand, and you can read up on Reformed theology so you can know MY stance. This is just an effort to get things to go as smoothly as possible.

Agreed. If you want a link for my statement of beliefs I am more than happy to provide it... but in brief here are points I will stand behind during our discussion.

#1. God created all intelligent life sinnless, perfect, holy harmless and with free will. That includes Lucifer and Adam and Eve.
#2 All mankind is depraved due to the sinful nature --
#3. There is only ONE Gospel - Saved by Grace through faith from the fall in Eden to the close of Revelation.
#4. God loves ALL, Convicts ALL and Draws ALL
#5. The Drawing of God does not first convert/regenerate - it draws!

As for Limited Atonement --
#1. At the Cross the Atoning Sacrifice was complete (1John 2:2 NIV) and is available for all - every sinner. "Not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world"

#2. The Lev 16 concept of the process of atonement does not end in Vs 16 of chapter 16. However Vs 16 does typify the atoning sacrifice completed at the cross.

#3. Lev 16 shows us that the High Priestly work of Christ (seen in HEb 7-9) is included in the Atonement process not just the work of Christ as the Lamb of God


In Christ,

Bob

 

[EdSutton]

"GOD, is not willing that any should PERISH" -- what a difference from: quoting BobRyan: "God is not WILLING that ANY should perish".

See the difference? It's huge and absolute! If you can't, it's no use trying to explain it to YOU.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I see the difference.

One individual 'captialized' two words; another individual 'capitalized' two different words.

Only one problem. Peter wrote every word of this Epistle WITHALLTHELETTERSCAPITALIZEDANDALLTHE WORDSRUNNINGTOGETHER, as there were no such thing, at the time, in the Greek language, either as "lower-case" letters, verse divisions, or "word breaks"!

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE:

"Where is it "the Bible truth that ALL ARE DRAWN"?

BR:

"Read your Bible sir. Less smoke - more fire please.

John 12:32 "I will draw ALL unto Me".

Be convicted. Accept the Word of God."

GE:

You forgot the text goes on: "This, He said, signifying WHAT KIND OF DEATH He should die".
"All"-'pantas' Neuter 'signifies' all SCRIPTURE, all prophecy, all promises, all "things" pertaining the Christ-Redeemer. Jesus did exactly that, and completely. If He spoke of men, He would not have spoken the truth, plainly obvious, for NOT all men are drawn to Him by the kind of death He died; on the contrary by it any reprobate will be disgusted in Him. So force this text to mean all men, and make Christ the liar.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"... it is IN ROM 10 that we find that it is NATURE and the voice of nature "going out to the whole earth" that is the WITNESS that ALL have HEARD!"

GE:

Not smoke, but lies! What you added, is nowhere "IN ROM 10"! Nor what you 'quoted'. So I take it you meant Romans the first chapter. Nevertheless, I read this in Romans 10, the absolute opposite of what you claim: "For whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard ..." "have NOT, heard", 'sir' read your Bible, 'sir'! 'SURELY they have never heard HAVE THEY?' INDEED they have NOT, NOT, NOT ... 'You might want keep reading at that point sir'.

 

[BobRyan]

Only one problem. Peter wrote every word of this Epistle WITHALLTHELETTERSCAPITALIZEDANDALLTHE WORDSRUNNINGTOGETHER, as there were no such thing, at the time, in the Greek language, either as "lower-case" letters, verse divisions, or "word breaks"!
Ed

True - and no punctuation as well!

So one may argue that I put too many spaces in my quote or that I failed to capitalize all the letters - but this one thing I DID AS is found in the Greek - I left OUT the punctionuation!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"-- in Rev 3 the sinner is alone on the inside and Christ stands outside - the Calvinist claims that WITHOUT Christ there is REGENERATION!"

GE:

Again you maintain your own standpoint by lies against Calvinism. Again you ignore the fact that it is Christ the Life-Giver that knocks. 'Knock' - a figure for 'speak'. The Recreator speaks and it comes about. I before referred you to the incident Lazarus where Jesus' call raised the dead. It is no otherwise in the regeneration of any.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO ATTRIBUTE TO MAN? THAT GOD ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAVE HIM?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

To Ed Sutton,

"GOD, is not willing that any should PERISH" -- what a difference from: quoting BobRyan: "God is not WILLING that ANY should perish".

It is not by the will of GOD, that any perish: It is by their own, WILL; It is by their OWN will, that they PERISH - their own will cannot ever, save them -- which is what BR and his buddies want us to believe.

 

[BobRyan]

"... it is IN ROM 10 that we find that it is NATURE and the voice of nature "going out to the whole earth" that is the WITNESS that ALL have HEARD!"

BR:


GE:

Not smoke, but lies! What you added, is nowhere "IN ROM 10"! Nor what you 'quoted'.

As usual - you make your point via slander and accusation INSTEAD of Bible study and showing that you actually have a point from the text.

I gave the quote "surely they have not heard have they" and pointed out in the text WHERE Psalms 19 is being quote regarding "Their voice going out to all the earth".

From Romans 10
16 However, they did not all heed the good news[/b]; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?"
17 [b]So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;[/b]
"THEIR [b]VOICE HAS GONE OUT INTO ALL THE EARTH,
AND THEIR WORDS TO THE ENDS OF THE WORLD."


From Psalms 19

Ps 19 The full text is as follows

1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,

GE

So I take it you meant Romans the first chapter. Nevertheless, I read this in Romans 10, the absolute opposite of what you claim: "For whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard ..." "have NOT, heard", 'sir' read your Bible, 'sir'! 'SURELY they have never heard HAVE THEY?' INDEED they have NOT, NOT, NOT ...

Rom 10
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;[/b]

"THEIR [b]VOICE HAS GONE OUT INTO ALL THE EARTH,
AND THEIR WORDS TO THE ENDS OF THE WORLD."

Instead of continually contradicting scripture and making stuff up - try reading it.

Instead of always coming out swinging, accusing, slandering and villifying - try a careful measured well-studied thoughtful approach.

Intead of ignoring that time after time after time when you try these failed ad hominem tactics to make your point - you are simply shown that the Bible fully debunks your half-cooked slander-first argument in its infancy - try responding with respect and with some thought in the discussion sir.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"At the Cross the Atoning Sacrifice was complete (1John 2:2 NIV) and is available for all - every sinner. "Not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world""

GE:

The Atoning Sacrifice was complete at the cross; yes. Yet not atonement "made", done or perfected. The sacrifice of Christ 'at the cross' would be worth no more than that of animals, did He not rise from the dead to life again. Therefore, only in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, is atonement as such, that is, full reconciliation, full forgiveness, full justification, 'completed'. "Finished" 'at the cross' were all sacrifices once for all by the sacrifice of Him ONLY BECAUSE He conquered death and grave and rose again.