Truth or Calvinism - That should do it.

[webdog]

Yes of course. It is impossible that you could be wrong, right?

)Oh, it is more than possible...but at least that is something I can admit to. I have yet to ever see you say you are wrong about something.

It is neither foolish nor unsupported.

Nice non answer. Support it, then.

Not sure what part of "they understand it and reject it" you don' understand. (No pun intended.) The problem is not grammar, language, concepts, etc. It is not mental incompetence. The problem is that they are blinded by their sin and they willfully reject the saving grace of Christ.

Not what Romans 1 says...and why does a corpse need blinding?

As long as we have had these conversations, you have stubbornly been unwilling to accept that we believe what we believe. You consistently put it in your framework and then deny it as if that somehow changes it. The reality is that your belief doesn't matter; neither does mine. The Bible does. And the Bible has spoken to this. Time to lay down your sword and trust that God knows more than you do, and he meant what he said.

I see...your view is the biblical view, and no other view can be.

When he said that that the unbeliever is "unable to please God" and "cannot do so" that should settle it. But you don't accept it. It's not me that's important here. You disagree with Scripture.

Ah, the Oldregular "you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Scripture. Quite arrogant to say the least. I do accept an unbeliever is unable to please God. In context it is speaking to works, not faith. I would have hoped you would have known that already.

 

[Winman]

So you disagree with the Bible? Because the Bible says that God is in the heavens doing whatever he pleases. He does it because he wants to (Psa 115:3, Eph 1:11, etc.)

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

If this verse means what you say it means, then all men will be saved, because the Bible clearly says God is not willing that any should perish.

2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

How do you answer that?

And why would Jesus say this;

Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

If God's will cannot be disobeyed, then why would Jesus say such a thing? If only those who do God's will can enter the kingdom of heaven, then pure logic argues that those who do not obey God's will cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

If God's will cannot be disobeyed, then why would Jesus say this?

 

[saturneptune]

Through his brain. He understands the concepts, the ideas. He can cognitively process the information. That's why he rejects it. He is morally unable to accept what he cognitively (with his physical brain) understands.

For layman that work for a living, that means head knowledge and not heart knowledge.

 

[webdog]

He is morally unable to accept what he cognitively (with his physical brain) understands.

...then he is morally unable to reject it as well by the very definitions of what those words mean.

 

[webdog]

This thread is past 30 pages, so it will be locked soon. I'm out...

 

[Me4Him]

Through his brain. He understands the concepts, the ideas. He can cognitively process the information. That's why he rejects it. He is morally unable to accept what he cognitively (with his physical brain) understands.

Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Mt 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

"Hearing" the gospel preached condemns all who hear it, man "knows" good from evil, saved or lost.

There's a "procedure" leading up to salvation, and it all begins with "Hearing" the Gospel and a big "IF".

"IF", we confess our sins, confess the Lord Jesus, believe in thine heart, thou shalt be saved.

Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made (leading) unto salvation.

Repentance is like "Love", God won't make you repent or love him,

A person can't be "FORCED" to Repent/Love or hate, only the person can make that decision,

And that's why "sovereign will/predestination" can't and won't accomplish God's goal of a new earth where only the people who believed/loved him are there.

You see, "FREE WILL",...."THY WILL, NOT MY WILL".. "BE DONE" is at the heart of the plan of salvation.

 

[Winman]

He is morally unable to accept what he cognitively (with his physical brain) understands.

Try that argument in a court of law and see if they fall for it. :laugh:

 

[Martin]

This thread is past 30 pages, so it will be locked soon. I'm out...

I'm with you.

Generally speaking I think this thread has been a great big waste of time and energy. At least on my part. I spent most of my replies covering the same points over and over again only to have to go back to them later. I am starting to wonder how valuable discussion boards are when it comes to these topics. It is simply too easy for people to avoid points and, let's be honest, when a thread gets this long people forget who they need to respond to (etc).

 

[Darrenss1]

As I have already pointed out, that just does not work. God does not draw believers to Himself. He draws sinners to Himself, sinners in need of salvation. Those who come to Christ in John 6:37 are coming for salvation. Why are they coming? Because the Father has given them to Jesus. Jesus gives eternal life to all of those the Father gives Him (Jn 17:2).

Clearly the Father gives believers to the Son NOT unbelievers. You quote John 17:2, read the rest.

17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Clearly this is not those who are unsaved but saved people. There is no reason to assume the "ALL" is unsaved elected people who will be selected for salvation.
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Reconciliation to the Father; The Father gives them to the Son; The Son is the Shepherd of the Father's sheep, the Advocate, the Head of the Church, the Mediator of the New Covenant, the High Priest. Clearly the Father gives believer's to the Son to follow the Son, the Son raises up those same believer's in the last day. The Son does not raise up unbelievers. Bottom line.

Darren

 

[Amy.G]

She's doing a bad job of it. There are some difficult questions to answer about Calvinism and soteriology. These simply aren't among them. If you are impressed by that level of questioning, then it shows (what we all know already) that you don't grasp the issues. Trust me when I tell you that that kind of question is not asked by people who know what they are talking about.

You really have a problem with me don't you? You have criticized my theology and knowledge of the Bible throughout this thread. I am not ignorant. Maybe you know I have made valid points and instead of answering them with scripture, you insult me and try to make me look stupid.

My question was based solely off what you said; "we can physically accept the truth but not morally." That is a ridiculous statement and has no biblical basis whatsoever and yet you arrogantly say that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Unbelievable, especially for someone who calls himself "pastor".


I am out as well. It's not worth it.

 

[Jerome]

"There has long been a great doctrinal discussion between the Calvinists and the Arminians upon many important points. I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both." ---Charles Spurgeon

 

[Robert Snow]

32. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. Death to Calvinism in one stroke of the Scripture

Is that universal salvation?

It doesn't say God will have mercy on all; it says God may have mercy on all. This isn't universal salvation.

 

[Me4Him]

I'm with you.

Generally speaking I think this thread has been a great big waste of time and energy. At least on my part. I spent most of my replies covering the same points over and over again only to have to go back to them later.

I agree with you, but the problem is your points are all focused on a very narrow range of scripture, mainly, the NT.

There's very little, to none, discussion of salvation in the OT or the tribulation period, Jesus only fulfilled the law, he didn't change the plan of salvation.

And it's only when the "plan" is understood "IN CONTEXT" with the "whole Bible" that you arrive at the truth. :thumbs:

 

[Pastor Larry]

You really have a problem with me don't you?

No, not at all. Actually, quite the opposite.

You have criticized my theology and knowledge of the Bible throughout this thread.

I have pointed out where there are some issues that need more biblical consideration by you.

I am not ignorant.

I am in many areas.

Maybe you know I have made valid points and instead of answering them with scripture, you insult me and try to make me look stupid.

No, I have pointed out that some of your points are not valid, and in fact have answered them with Scripture. I haven't insulted you or tried ot make you look stupid.

My question was based solely off what you said; "we can physically accept the truth but not morally." That is a ridiculous statement and has no biblical basis whatsoever and yet you arrogantly say that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I am not sure how you can say this has no biblical basis whatsoever.

Consider John 8:43: Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.

Notice that with the Pharisees the problem was physical hearing or mental cognition. In the text they are having a conversation that makes perfect sense. They understand what Jesus is saying. That is what I called "physically accepting the truth." Their brains can process it and they reject it. But they do not "understand it." they do not "hear it." That is moral cognition or spiritual cognition.

So you see, there is biblical basis for this. It is in fact the only way to explain what was going on there.

Unbelievable, especially for someone who calls himself "pastor".

Why is it unbelievable that a pastor has a theological discussion in which he points out where he believes people are in error, tries to patiently explain why they are in error, and show it from the Scripture? Is your experience with pastors so bad that when one actually does what a pastor is supposed to do it is foreign and uncomfortable? How would I be a pastor if I didn't teach people the Word and patiently explain it?

I am out as well. It's not worth it.

I have quit these discussions many times. I used to participate in virtually every thread and now I rarely read them. But every time I do, it causes me to go back to Scripture and reconsider it again. And each time, I am more convinced that I am in line with Scripture.

So I hope you will continue to learn and study. I do, and it helps me every day.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Oh, it is more than possible...but at least that is something I can admit to. I have yet to ever see you say you are wrong about something.

Then you haven't read much of what I have said. When I am wrong I admit it.

Nice non answer. Support it, then.

I have many times. You have been
here long enough to know that.

Not what Romans 1 says...and why does a corpse need blinding?

i don't know. I am just quoting the Scriptures. Eph 1 says we are dead in trespasses and sins. 2 Cor 4 says that the god of this world has blinded the minds of hte unbelieving. So the Bible teaches that corpses are blinded. Do you deny either verse? You have to put them together somehow.

I see...your view is the biblical view, and no other view can be.

On this topic, yes. For all your efforst here over the years, you have never made a cogent argument against what I believe the Bible teaches. Every time you ask me to go back and look at a verse, I do, and it confirms what I believe.

Ah, the Oldregular "you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Scripture.

You are though, aren't you? Does Scripture say that the unbeliever is "unable to please God" and "cannot do so"?

Romans 8:6-8 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

In Romans 8, the contrast is between saved and unsaved. This is the description of hte unsaved.

Quite arrogant to say the least.

Again, I am simply quoting Scripture. If that is arrogant, then so be it.

I do accept an unbeliever is unable to please God. In context it is speaking to works, not faith. I would have hoped you would have known that already.

First, that's not what the text says. Second, it seems you would have to argue that faith doesn't please God? Because if the unbeliever is unable to please God, and he can have faith, then faith would have to be displeasing to God or the unbeliever would have to be able to please God. You can't have it both ways.

Web, over the years you have been upset at me many times. I am okay with that. It doesn't bother me. This is about the text, not personalities. My encouragement to you is to study the text. There are many verses that you are simply unwilling to deal with, and many others that you just twist around to fit into your preconceived notion.

If you are angry at me, I can assure you that it is not returned by me. This is about ideas. And yours do not seem to fit into the Bible.

 

[Allan]

I am not sure how you can say this has no biblical basis whatsoever.

Consider John 8:43: Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.

Notice that with the Pharisees the problem was physical hearing or mental cognition. In the text they are having a conversation that makes perfect sense. They understand what Jesus is saying. That is what I called "physically accepting the truth." Their brains can process it and they reject it. But they do not "understand it." they do not "hear it." That is moral cognition or spiritual cognition.

So you see, there is biblical basis for this. It is in fact the only way to explain what was going on there.

The above sounds pretty silly PL.

Jesus did not state "why do you not [believe when it is apparent you] understand what I am saying? It is because you do not hear my word."
or anything in like manner. (not saying you stated this but using it as an example of what it would have to say or imply to get your rendering as far as I can see)

He states, more simply put:
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you will not listen to me.

The passage given can in no way be used to represent what you give. They 'didn't understand' because they 'would not' (of their own choosing) listen. Thus the above gives you no basis for your view. There may be better verses to use but this is not one of them.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If this verse means what you say it means, then all men will be saved, because the Bible clearly says God is not willing that any should perish.

You are confusing the idea of "will" in God. It is clear from Scripture that God has a desirative will and a decreed will. The Bible teaches that everything God wills comes to pass, and nothing can stand in its way. This being the case, if God wills everyone to be saved, then that is universalism. Only by recognizing that God, in a sense, has two wills, can we reconcile this. Your theology can't do that.

How do you answer that?

What do you mean? I believe God is not willing that any should perish. He does not desire the death of the wicked. A few years ago, one of those on your side almost persuaded me to change my view of that verse to believe that God was speaking only of the elect there, but in the end, I think the verse is speaking of God's desirative will.

If God's will cannot be disobeyed, then why would Jesus say such a thing?

Again, remember that the Bible speaks of God's will differently. You don't seem to recognize that.

If only those who do God's will can enter the kingdom of heaven, then pure logic argues that those who do not obey God's will cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Pure logic would argue for a works based salvation. But man's logic is flawed, and Scripture is not.

These are old questions that have been dealt with in many places.

 

[Pastor Larry]

...then he is morally unable to reject it as well by the very definitions of what those words mean.

No he's not. The Bible declares differently.

Again, as this thread winds down, it is disappointing to see how little of this discussion actually focuses on Scripture. Look how many times people appeal to logic, to dictionaries, to personalities, to their own thoughts, etc.

Why not just appeal to Scripture? Is that not sufficient? Yes, we have to put things together, but our minds never sit in judgment on Scripture. And that is where too many here are willing to sit. I refuse to be a part of that. If my theological is "logically inconsistent" I am okay with that. I preach the Bible for what it says. I don't need to make it fit a system, though it does so remarkably well as we might suspect.

 

[DHK]

Again, as this thread winds down, it is disappointing to see how little of this discussion actually focuses on Scripture.

It has "wounded" down.
Time to close it.