What is calvinism?

[Pastor Larry]

So, yes, in this context, the foreknown are limited to believers.

The foreknown are not believers yet. And the context does not give us two groups of foreknown. And that is your problem. You have foreknown people who are not called, justified, and glorified.

Calvinism wants to sanctify the person before he/she is justified.

Calvinism recognizes that the word translated as sanctification is used for an act of God prior to faith and salvation. I have given you the evidence and you have no answer for it that does not involve changing the text. So I reject your answer.

Indeed, it was. So you are conceding that salvation was different in the OT?

Nope.

We're going to have to leave behind your verses.

This is exactly the problem. You want to leave behind the verses so you can talk about your philosophy and theology. We have no basis to discuss salvation if we are going to leave behind the verses.

I agree justification is never said to follow election.

Then why did you say that justification comes before sanctification/election?

what are the "two meanings" of sanctification?

Hagiozo only has one meaning, to set apart. It is applied in different ways. It happens to believers, to set them apart for godliness. It happens to unbelievers to set them apart for salvation (2 Thess 2;13; 1 Peter 1;2). It happens to unbelieving spouses because of a believing spouse (1 Cor 7:13). It always means to set apart. The context of the passages help us understand what that setting apart is to.

I'll slow down to one-a-days with you but you need to be disabused of your weak sotierology.

You have yet to show any weakness in my soteriology. So far you have managed only to show that you can’t handle Scripture.

What do you think of Presby D. James Kennedy's Evangelism Explosion?

I don’t know a lot about it, but from what I know it is pretty decent.

Larry -- first comes JUSTIFICATION wherein we believe the "gospel" of God/Spirit/Son and repent by the functioning of our own mind, emotions, and will. There is NEVER EVER in scripture a place where this is omitted and the person was saved and receives faith.

This is true because God changes our will so that we willingly believe.

You gotta understand the mind of Christ.

And this comes from Scripture and you want to leave certain verses behind because they don’t fit your system and you have no explanation for them.

So why should I continue since you refuse to interact on what Scripture says, since you refuse to study? What benefit is there for me in this?

 

[psalms109:31]

Scripture

God is going to save the whole tree, the tree has predestined to be saved

They are the one's that remain in Jesus. He did foreknew who they were.

The one's who were cut out was for unbelief, they one's He regrafted in was because they didn't persist in thier unbelief. He also included those who heard the Gospel of thier salvation and believed.

God has predestined the whole body to be saved.

It is by grace through faith that we have been saved.

God does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth even if we try to find our way around that it does not make it not true.

 

[johnp.]

'Hey-oop me duck' as they say up here.

Yet if man can't make a choice on his own, he has no "free will."

That's right.

I maintain that we bring God's sovereignty into our lives by freely choosing Him.

You maintain an unscriptural point of view and a republican perspective. Kings don't ask for your vote.

But by not freely choosing Him, God is still sovereign, just not in your life.

He's not Sovereign then. He can't be Sovereign and not Sovereign.

God will tell him in the end, right? In Psa David said and in Mt Jesus confirmed "ye are gods." What did that mean? It meant that we were sovereigns of our own lives.

Did it? But if we are gods with sovereignty God isn't is He? Try to think of God as a Despot and you will have a better idea of the qualities of Kings with absolute power.

God will tell him in the end, right?

Why? If the man has free will then it's free isn't it, why should God interfer with it or punish the use of it? It can't be free if there is a threat for using it wilfully?

Isn't that what we see except among Christians?

I don't understand.

Isn't, indeed, Satan the ruler of this age? But He's not powerless to intervene, is He? He sent the flood, right?

Satan is a tool of God just like the rest of us. The King of Kings dictates to him. JOB 1:12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
I'm not sure what you mean though. Who sent the flood?

Basically, Calvinism falls apart if sovereignty is not seen as they cast it.

Calvinism operates on the basis that men decide their own destiny in Hell. God is still sovereign, just not in the reprobates life.

But we, knowing it is flawed, can abandon much of Calvinism, including the TULIP, and discern what the Bible really says, right?

Who's the 'we'? Calvinism is flawed in one part only. Tulip is a fine description of the gospel. It is as fine a piece of truth as you can find anywhere short of Heaven. The only thing that should be changed is the word depravity, for inability. Depravity offends some who think it should be reserved for those who exhibit it the most. Our daffodils have come out 6 weeks early down in the South West.

God is not the author of sin.

If He ain't I'm in a lot of bother ain't I?

His "binding all men over to disobedience" is just another way of saying that by free will men make themselves servants of another master -- Satan.

It says quite clearly that it is God that bound us over. It is beyond dispute. Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience...

And if they do, then God is not sovereign in their lives but only over their lives.

A subtle change? So you are saying that since God is Sovereign over their lives then He will and does interfer with free will choices? Or is this Sovereignty not exercised by Him?

They remain in God's plan -- they just don't help it come to fruitition.

PR 16:4 The LORD works out everything for his own ends-- even the wicked for a day of disaster.
We all take part in the plan man. A little way on and PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
I hold that all events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God. That's Calvinism that is.

This is the cop out of all who can't discern what God's plan really is.

Tell me what God's plan really is then please.

You ought to run from such declarations.

The plan that is all planned out is infinite, eternal. God always loved me and always will, without beginning and without end. Jesus at the center.

The Bible is very explicit and we KNOW that whoever BELIEVES is foreknown and predestined of God. Ignorance, according to Rom 1, is not an excuse.

Looks good, like the fig tree.

john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Blammo.

Looks to me like the "them" in verse 32 is referring to Israel. Also, it appears that God did not cause them to disbelieve, rather He caused them to remain in unbelief.

That's a very small 'all' you have there. All men means Israel? So every Israelite is saved regardless because he is an Israelite? Is that what you mean? No choice like?

Also, it appears that God did not cause them to disbelieve...

To be concluded in unbelief is to be bound over in disobedience by God. They mean the same, the translators knew what they were doing.

For God hath concluded (5656) them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy (5661) upon all.

concluded to shut up together, enclose
of a shoal of fishes in a net
to shut up on all sides, shut up completely

unbelief obstinacy, obstinate opposition to the divine will

So God has shut us up completely into an obstinate opposition to the divine will. As I said, God is the Author of sin. That the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, greed and boasting, do not come from the Father isn't meant as a discription of God's Sovereignty, or not as the case may be, but a warning that if a man is like this in the Church then he isn't a Christian.

If the greed and lust and boasting comes from man it will be covered by, PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
Lust, greed and boasting come from the heart, it's our condition.

RO 9:6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

So you are saying that Romans 11:32 is talking about the Israelites alone and the 'all men' means only the Jews. What does the 'all' mean at the end of the verse? It can't mean all Israelites can it? 1 Sam 3:16 is blunt that Eli's house had no atonement given for it. God swore He would provide none for Eli's house. Limited atonement is proved if you have eyes.
Romans 11:32 says that God caused us all to be in sin, Jews and Gentiles, so that he could have mercy on all men, Jews and Gentiles being the 'all men' not individuals.

john.

 

[johnp.]

God does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth even if we try to find our way around that it does not make it not true.

ISA 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

If He is not willing that any perish why does He create those going to Hell Psalms? He says He knows who they are because He makes known the end, He knows the end.

john.

 

[psalms109:31]

ISA 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

If He is not willing that any perish why does He create those going to Hell Psalms? He says He knows who they are because He makes known the end, He knows the end.

john.

Praise be to God that the Father choose to save those who have faith in His Son.

That is the purpose of God.

For He does not want any to perish, but all to come to the knowledge of the truth.

If we walk away from the grace of God it is our own fault, because God does not want any to perish.

 

[Blammo]

That's a very small 'all' you have there. All men means Israel? So every Israelite is saved regardless because he is an Israelite? Is that what you mean? No choice like?

No, and intentionaly misunderstanding what I said does not make for a good discussion. Try this verse:

Romans 11:30 For as ye (gentiles) in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their (Israels) unbelief:

To be concluded in unbelief is to be bound over in disobedience by God. They mean the same, the translators knew what they were doing.

For God hath concluded (5656) them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy (5661) upon all.

concluded to shut up together, enclose
of a shoal of fishes in a net
to shut up on all sides, shut up completely

unbelief obstinacy, obstinate opposition to the divine will

Very good, brother. Were they in unbelief before they were "shut up together" in unbelief, or not? And, was that "blindness" temporary or permanent?

So God has shut us up completely into an obstinate opposition to the divine will. As I said, God is the Author of sin. That the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, greed and boasting, do not come from the Father isn't meant as a discription of God's Sovereignty, or not as the case may be, but a warning that if a man is like this in the Church then he isn't a Christian.

So the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ARE of the Father, except for inside the Church?????

If the greed and lust and boasting comes from man it will be covered by, PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
Lust, greed and boasting come from the heart, it's our condition.

Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

That verse supports exactly what I believe. Man makes his own plans, but God is sovereign over man. The verse does not say God causes man to sin, it says that God may overide man's plans. Man is still responsible for his intentions, not God.

RO 9:6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

So you are saying that Romans 11:32 is talking about the Israelites alone and the 'all men' means only the Jews. What does the 'all' mean at the end of the verse? It can't mean all Israelites can it? 1 Sam 3:16 is blunt that Eli's house had no atonement given for it. God swore He would provide none for Eli's house. Limited atonement is proved if you have eyes.
Romans 11:32 says that God caused us all to be in sin, Jews and Gentiles, so that he could have mercy on all men, Jews and Gentiles being the 'all men' not individuals.

Romans 11:30-32 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

I am saying that the "ye" and "your" in these verses are gentiles.
I am saying that the "their", "these", "they", and "them all" are Jews.
I am saying that the "all" at the end of verse 32 is all of mankind.

 

[skypair]

'nother edit malfunction. Anyone know where the "delete" is when editing?

 

[skypair]

Larry

...

I love ya, Larry! Thanks for sharing yourself.

The foreknown are not believers yet. And the context does not give us two groups of foreknown. And that is your problem. You have foreknown people who are not called, justified, and glorified.

"Foreknown not believers yet." True, but God knows they will be. That's the whole point of omniscience, isn't it?

Calvinism recognizes that the word translated as sanctification is used for an act of God prior to faith and salvation...

Then we've found the error! Unbelievers are being sanctified daily mostly to SATAN. Calvin is, just as I observed, trying to sanctifiy people who aren't even justified before God. The only "salvation" sanctification precedes is glorification -- the day we end up in heaven. (See below before answering).

...I have given you the evidence and you have no answer for it that does not involve changing the text. So I reject your answer.

What text? 2Thes, 1Pet, John 7?

This is exactly the problem. You want to leave behind the verses so you can talk about your philosophy and theology. We have no basis to discuss salvation if we are going to leave behind the verses.

Well, I think even you have decided what those verses read and there is no more approaching them directly, is there. The same would go for me. The point being, I am trying another tact -- this issue of the process of salvation, justification-sanctification-glorification. There is more scripture bearing on the issue. It is possible to come back to those you cite later. Can you follow that?

Me: I agree justification is never said to follow election.

You: Then why did you say that justification comes before sanctification/election?

It does. I can't find in scripture where it doesn't.

Hagiozo only has one meaning, to set apart. It is applied in different ways. It happens to believers, to set them apart for godliness. It happens to unbelievers to set them apart for salvation (2 Thess 2;13; 1 Peter 1;2). It happens to unbelieving spouses because of a believing spouse (1 Cor 7:13). It always means to set apart. The context of the passages help us understand what that setting apart is to.

I see what you are driving at -- that God is aware that there is could be a work of sanctification going on prior to salvation. But it wouldn't be the same work as the one where we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is my point. I'd like to restrict our discussion to that since that is what I call regeneration, born again, indwelt, etc. which comes AFTER justification.

See, I agree that Israel was set apart as a nation but they weren't all saved. This is the same model that Calvin uses (I believe) -- the same one by which Israel omitted to repent and choose God because they were already "elect" by His declaration. And this is what is called "sacralism" -- where whole societies are the redeemed church by proxy. However, the true church are the "invisble" saved among them who have made their own belief and committment to Christ, usually in spite of their organized church.

You have yet to show any weakness in my soteriology. So far you have managed only to show that you can’t handle Scripture.

Map out for me your distinctions between justification, sanctification, glorification. I can't even show you the weaknesses until you can distinguish what differences there are. So far, IMO you are running them all together.

I don’t know a lot about it, but from what I know it is pretty decent.

And yet D. James Kennedy would have you drive the listener to the sinners prayer. How is that different from Calvinism?

This is true because God changes our will so that we willingly believe.

If you say by seduction or persuasion of the Spirit, I agree. He doesn't go into our "computer" mind and change a "1" to a "0." WE "flip the switch." But, yeah, God is in there in word, in conscience, in authority -- "7 spirits of God" (Rev 5:6).

And this comes from Scripture and you want to leave certain verses behind because they don’t fit your system and you have no explanation for them. [1Cor 2]

I carefully showed you the change from when Paul preahced to them and then what he was about to write to them. The latter was "wisdom to the perfect." It is obvious that starting a church, Paul would come only preaching Christ crucified which they could understand. It is also clear that in writing he gave them the wisdom of God which unbelievers cannot understand. As with other texts, you are removing them from consideration because you have so misunderstood them as to be blind to them. It behooves me to replan my approach so that you can understand.

So why should I continue since you refuse to interact on what Scripture says, since you refuse to study? What benefit is there for me in this?

I refuse to study? That's pretty desperate, Larry. The fact is when you offer a verse, all I have to do is put my cursor over it the whole chapter pops up for me to study [Instaverse.com and download). I would therefore suggest that maybe you are not following up by studying my assertions and interpretations. But I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. You either will or won't but there is plenty of other scripture left on my side.

skypair

 

[skypair]

But if we are gods with sovereignty God isn't is He? Try to think of God as a Despot and you will have a better idea of the qualities of Kings with absolute power.

Even kings don't have power over your thought life, johnp. You're stretching the point.

I got one for you to try -- try thinking of God as Father. Maybe you are a father to boot. Do you let your kids do pretty much what they want within bounds? Are you still "sovereign" over them? Do they have any "sovereignty" of their own?

Why? If the man has free will then it's free isn't it, why should God interfer with it or punish the use of it? It can't be free if there is a threat for using it wilfully?

Huh? The fact that will is "free" doesn't take away punishment when the will does wrong. In fact, that is a demonstration that it is free -- it can do despite what its Maker would have it do.

Satan is a tool of God just like the rest of us. The King of Kings dictates to him. JOB 1:12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

"Tool." Curious choice of words -- except for a Calvinist who sees us all as "robots." It is true that God CAN guard his own -- but He doesn't always. What about the apostles? All but John were slain by Satan.

Calvinism operates on the basis that men decide their own destiny in Hell. God is still sovereign, just not in the reprobates life.

Which is to say that as soon as we sin, God no longer decides our destiny. Yeah, that's good. You can actually see that God is still sovereign despite that reprobates are not under His control. That's quite a breakthrough, john!

Who's the 'we'? Calvinism is flawed in one part only. Tulip is a fine description of the gospel. It is as fine a piece of truth as you can find anywhere short of Heaven. The only thing that should be changed is the word depravity, for inability. Depravity offends some who think it should be reserved for those who exhibit it the most. Our daffodils have come out 6 weeks early down in the South West.

And Calvinists are quick to add that Calvinism IS the gospel -- except it ain't. The gospel is 1Cor 15:1-4 -- that Christ died for our sins and arose for our sin. Paul preached it and they received it and stand in it. Sorry, I see no necessity in Calvinism of receiving it.

It says quite clearly that it is God that bound us over. It is beyond dispute. Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience...

Yup, "men." And yeah, if we sin He binds us over to Satan but if we believe and repent, He binds us over to Christ.

A subtle change? So you are saying that since God is Sovereign over their lives then He will and does interfer with free will choices? Or is this Sovereignty not exercised by Him?

In believers, yes. His will interfers and becomes our will, right?

PR 16:4 The LORD works out everything for his own ends-- even the wicked for a day of disaster.
We all take part in the plan man. A little way on and PR 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
I hold that all events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God. That's Calvinism that is.

Calvinism's issue is application. He doesn't know what application to make of what truth. "election," for instance. He wants to apply it to the unsaved is some quaint way that lets him skip the idea that they must be justified first and go right into sanctifying them. Free will say the "elect" are the justified, period. No one is "elect" before that point.

Tell me what God's plan really is then please.

God's plan really is to bring believers of all time through Christ to Himself. It is to destroy Satan and his work and to recreate a place where He will live with us -- One Himself as we are one.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

"Foreknown not believers yet." True, but God knows they will be. That's the whole point of omniscience, isn't it?

yes, but the point is with your definition he also foreknows unbelievers, and Rom 8:29 says “those whom he foreknew” (which would include unbelievers as well) are called justified and glorify, and that cannot be. So foreknown cannot mean what you want it to.

Calvin is, just as I observed, trying to sanctifiy people who aren't even justified before God. The only "salvation" sanctification precedes is glorification -- the day we end up in heaven. (See below before answering).

Again, you are missing the definition of set apart. You won’t study to figure it out.

Well, I think even you have decided what those verses read and there is no more approaching them directly, is there. The same would go for me. The point being, I am trying another tact -- this issue of the process of salvation, justification-sanctification-glorification. There is more scripture bearing on the issue. It is possible to come back to those you cite later. Can you follow that?

Trying another tack won’t get you anywhere because you still have the same problem of ignoring verses that comment on that very “process” you want to discuss.

It does. I can't find in scripture where it doesn't.

Election is from the foundation of the world. Justification happens in time. Therefore, justification happens after election

I see what you are driving at -- that God is aware that there is could be a work of sanctification going on prior to salvation.

That is not what God is aware of. The point of “setting apart” in 2 Thess 2:13 and 1 Peter 1:2 is that God sets them apart for salvation.

But it wouldn't be the same work as the one where we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is my point.

I agree, but that was never a point of disagreement. You tried to change the subject to this.

I'd like to restrict our discussion to that since that is what I call regeneration, born again, indwelt, etc. which comes AFTER justification.

Of course you would like to limit it to that because then you can avoid dealing with the verses that contradict you.

Map out for me your distinctions between justification, sanctification, glorification. I can't even show you the weaknesses until you can distinguish what differences there are. So far, IMO you are running them all together.

If you think I am running them together, you are confused. I hold the traditional orthodoxy distinctions in this. Justification is God’s declaring man to be righteous through Christ. Sanctification after salvation is man becoming holy in obedience to God. Glorification is the reception of a new body in heaven. These are not our differences. Our differences, at this point, is what happens before salvation.

And yet D. James Kennedy would have you drive the listener to the sinners prayer. How is that different from Calvinism?

It’s not. D James Kennedy is a Calvinist.

If you say by seduction or persuasion of the Spirit, I agree. He doesn't go into our "computer" mind and change a "1" to a "0." WE "flip the switch." But, yeah, God is in there in word, in conscience, in authority -- "7 spirits of God" (Rev 5:6).

We “flip the switch”? How so? The Bible says that we are unable to understand and unable to please God. Surely “flipping the switch” would be pleasing to God. And the Bible says we can’t do that. There must be a unilateral work of the Spirit.

I carefully showed you the change from when Paul preahced to them and then what he was about to write to them.

No you didn’t. You decided what you wanted to believe and then arranged the text to fit it. I reject that.

It is obvious that starting a church, Paul would come only preaching Christ crucified which they could understand. It is also clear that in writing he gave them the wisdom of God which unbelievers cannot understand.

So what is the “wisdom of God” that unbelievers cannot understand? Your hint in is chapter 1:18-25 … It is Christ crucified, the power of God unto salvation. You deny this.

As with other texts, you are removing them from consideration because you have so misunderstood them as to be blind to them. It behooves me to replan my approach so that you can understand.

Here’s the funny thing. I have not removed any text from consideration. You have done that. In addition, replanning your approach is not necessary. You are not being original here. This tactic has been tried so many times already, and it has failed everytime.

I refuse to study? That's pretty desperate, Larry. The fact is when you offer a verse, all I have to do is put my cursor over it the whole chapter pops up for me to study [Instaverse.com and download). I would therefore suggest that maybe you are not following up by studying my assertions and interpretations. But I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. You either will or won't but there is plenty of other scripture left on my side.

Yes, you refuse to study hagiazo to see that it is not only an “after salvation” work. You refuse to study 1 Cor 1-2 to see what the wisdom of God was and what Paul was talking about. Popping up a chapter on a screen is not study. As for my following up on your assertions and studying them, I have done that long ago. Everything you are saying is old news. It has been tried and found wanting.

 

[skypair]

yes, but the point is with your definition he also foreknows unbelievers, and Rom 8:29 says “those whom he foreknew” (which would include unbelievers as well) are called justified and glorify, and that cannot be. So foreknown cannot mean what you want it to.

I know, Larry. But there is no even implication that He predestines the lost. Do you believe He does? That they are the objects of His predestination unto glory? Well, I don't either. No sense discussing whether He knows them or not then, right?

Again, you are missing the definition of set apart. You won’t study to figure it out.

Thank you for those scriptures on the other thread. There is, indeed, as I tried to note regarding Israel, a "physically" setting apart to which I was NOT referring when I said that only believers are sanctified by the Holy Spirit (spiritually).

Trying another tack won’t get you anywhere because you still have the same problem of ignoring verses that comment on that very “process” you want to discuss.

It is NOT a problem, Larry. You ignore them too by ignoring my interpretation. Is it that you can't find any other foundation for your theology?

If you think I am running them together, you are confused. I hold the traditional orthodoxy distinctions in this. Justification is God’s declaring man to be righteous through Christ. Sanctification after salvation is man becoming holy in obedience to God. Glorification is the reception of a new body in heaven. These are not our differences. Our differences, at this point, is what happens before salvation.

OK, good. Then how is man "justified?" Based on what does God declare a man to be just?

It’s not. D James Kennedy is a Calvinist.

But Calvinism claims there is nothing we can "do" to affect our own salvation, right? So a "sinner's prayer" is what?

We “flip the switch”? How so? The Bible says that we are unable to understand and unable to please God. Surely “flipping the switch” would be pleasing to God. And the Bible says we can’t do that. There must be a unilateral work of the Spirit.

Taken the wrong way, we can't please God. We surely don't please God when we sin. I believe we can please God by believing in His Son, don't you? And you know my answer to that "understand" jig. But at least you are down to acknowledging the Spirit involvement. Yes, we believe because we are convinced and convicted by the Spirit. And we are convinced and convicted because we hear, Larry.

So let's put down some steps to salvation: We hear -- get conviced and convicted -- believe -- repent -- receive faith from God. That would, IMO, be the "justification package." Even John the Baptist's disciples (OT saints) did this.

Time for breakfast. I'll try getting to the rest later.

skypair

 

[skypair]

So what is the “wisdom of God” that unbelievers cannot understand?

1Cor 2:6-16 -- things that were hidden in times past. Larry, why can't you just read 1Cor 2 and see that?

Yes, you refuse to study hagiazo to see that it is not only an “after salvation” work.

No, that ia a false accusation. I have studied and shown you my observations acknowledging where you were right and where you were wrong.

You refuse to study 1 Cor 1-2

Again, false accustion. You had not even brought 1Cor 1 into the discussion until you wanted to distract from the truth in 1Cor 2.

As for my following up on your assertions and studying them, I have done that long ago. Everything you are saying is old news.

Old news but perhaps not fresh, eh? Old news but perhaps not current. Try again -- return to your first love, Lar.

skypair

 

[npetreley]

I know, Larry. But there is no even implication that He predestines the lost. Do you believe He does? That they are the objects of His predestination unto glory? Well, I don't either. No sense discussing whether He knows them or not then, right?

Obviously Jesus thinks there's sense in discussing that. He specifically says "I never knew you" to the fakes who claimed to know Him. This is in contrast to those whom He foreknew. So it isn't a matter of foreknowing what people will do, because then everyone would fall under the category of being foreknown. The difference would be WHAT is foreknown, not WHOM is foreknown. But the Bible says there are those He foreknew, and those He never knew.

 

[psalms109:31]

Key word

They key word in I never knew you is you evil doer.

He is talking about those who are blown by every kind of wind.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I know, Larry. But there is no even implication that He predestines the lost. Do you believe He does? That they are the objects of His predestination unto glory? Well, I don't either. No sense discussing whether He knows them or not then, right?

Romans 9 talks about vessels prepared beforehand for destruction. Even in your view, God foreknew that they would not believe, and yet your view of foreknowledge makes stupidity out of romans 8:29.

Thank you for those scriptures on the other thread. There is, indeed, as I tried to note regarding Israel, a "physically" setting apart to which I was NOT referring when I said that only believers are sanctified by the Holy Spirit (spiritually).

But those verses don’t discuss Israel, and they are not a “physical” setting apart. How do we know? Because we read the verse.

You ignore them too by ignoring my interpretation. Is it that you can't find any other foundation for your theology?

I haven’t ignored your interpretation. I rejected it because it doesn’t deal with the text. The foundation for theology is Scripture, and that is why we discuss it.

OK, good. Then how is man "justified?" Based on what does God declare a man to be just?

By faith in the work of Christ. But that is not the issue here.

But Calvinism claims there is nothing we can "do" to affect our own salvation, right? So a "sinner's prayer" is what?

Calling on the name of the Lord, as the Bible describes. That is hardly “doing something to affect our own salvation.” That is a problem usually only for hyper Calvinists.

I believe we can please God by believing in His Son, don't you?

Yes, which is why there must be a supernatural and unilateral work of the Spirit. You as an unbeliever cannot please God, and yet by believing you do please God. Somewhere, things changed.

So let's put down some steps to salvation

Why distract from the issue with this?

1Cor 2:6-16 -- things that were hidden in times past. Larry, why can't you just read 1Cor 2 and see that?

Yes, the church which was bought through the blood of Christ. That is the mystery and the wisdom of God. 1 cor 1 makes that clear.

I have studied and shown you my observations acknowledging where you were right and where you were wrong.[/quoet]Then you didn’t study. You can’t look at those verses and legitimately deny some kind of setting apart prior to salvation.

You had not even brought 1Cor 1 into the discussion until you wanted to distract from the truth in 1Cor 2.

We were talking about the context. The Bible wasn’t written in chapters. What is in chapter 2 flows right out of the thoguths of chapter 1. You can’t discuss 2 without 1. I don’t want to distract. I am doggedly trying to keep you from doing that.
So again, there is a real sense here in which this is a discussion about whether or not the Scriptures will dictate our theology, or to what degree we will adjust or deny the Scripture to maintain our position. We have shown fairly conclusively, with your help, that you are intent on “adjusting” certain verses of Scripture in order to fit what you want to believe. You have yet to show anywhere we do that. In fact, I have a very “inconsistent” theology in some ways, as all Calvinists do, because we can’t tie it up neatly in a box. Scripture won’t let us.

 

[skypair]

Obviously Jesus thinks there's sense in discussing that. He specifically says "I never knew you" to the fakes who claimed to know Him. This is in contrast to those whom He foreknew. So it isn't a matter of foreknowing what people will do, because then everyone would fall under the category of being foreknown. The difference would be WHAT is foreknown, not WHOM is foreknown. But the Bible says there are those He foreknew, and those He never knew.

npetreley -- I would remind you that in that verse, Jesus is informing those who thought they were saved that they weren't. IOW, has nothing to do with this conversation.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Romans 9 talks about vessels prepared beforehand for destruction. Even in your view, God foreknew that they would not believe, and yet your view of foreknowledge makes stupidity out of romans 8:29.

Do you detect that you are getting a little personal in your "attacks?" I never said He didn't foreknow the lost -- I said that they were NOT the object of Paul's discourse in Rom 8. I also would say, if you want to broach the subject, that God foreknew that Israel would fall. That He "prepared" them so is their "resistance" (the clay "resisted"), not God's.

But those verses don’t discuss Israel, and they are not a “physical” setting apart. How do we know? Because we read the verse.

The verse. Hmm. How about the CONTEXT, Larry? How about Paul opening every chapter with remorse that he can't save ISRAEL?? As long as you believe/follow Calvin, you're hopeless, Lar.

Calling on the name of the Lord, as the Bible describes. That is hardly “doing something to affect our own salvation.” That is a problem usually only for hyper Calvinists.

Larry, many Calvinists DISDAIN the "sinner's prayer," aisle walking, "works" (they say) -- most Calvinist churches NEVER invite people to receive Christ as Savior. Do you get out any? You know this.

Yes, which is why there must be a supernatural and unilateral work of the Spirit. You as an unbeliever cannot please God, and yet by believing you do please God. Somewhere, things changed.

JUSTIFICATION, Larry. Again, explain justification as you know it. But in Calvinism, you can't.

Yes, the church which was bought through the blood of Christ. That is the mystery and the wisdom of God. 1 cor 1 makes that clear.

NOT in total. There are at least 7 mysteries -- there are at least 12 parables. You have given 1 mystery, Larry. Does that satisfy you that you are - 2Cor 3:6 - an "able minister of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit:"? Not me!

I have studied and shown you my observations acknowledging where you were right and where you were wrong.

Then you didn’t study. You can’t look at those verses and legitimately deny some kind of setting apart prior to salvation.

If justification is "set apart," then yes. Will you admit that justification comes before sanctification?

So again, there is a real sense here in which this is a discussion about whether or not the Scriptures [or Calvin] will dictate our theology, or to what degree we will adjust or deny the Scripture to maintain our [your]position.

In fact, I have a very “inconsistent” theology in some ways, as all Calvinists do, because we can’t tie it up neatly in a box. Scripture won’t let us.

WHAT???? "Scripture won't let you" and yet you dare deny mine?? There's a guy on another board who is prewrath who says the same thing. He says that all rapture theories are based on assumption. Know what? That only reveals that he is applying his insecurity to all other "theories." Couldn't be more blind! Scripture/God tells us MUCH MORE than he or you or Sproul gives Him credit for!

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Do you detect that you are getting a little personal in your "attacks?"

Nope, not at all. I am bored with repeating the same things, but not personal.

I never said He didn't foreknow the lost -- I said that they were NOT the object of Paul's discourse in Rom 8.

Yes, you said this. God did not.

The verse. Hmm. How about the CONTEXT, Larry? How about Paul opening every chapter with remorse that he can't save ISRAEL??

Which verse are you talking about?

As long as you believe/follow Calvin, you're hopeless, Lar.

I agree. Fortunately, I never had this problem since I don’t follow Calvin.

Larry, many Calvinists DISDAIN the "sinner's prayer," aisle walking, "works" (they say) -- most Calvinist churches NEVER invite people to receive Christ as Savior. Do you get out any? You know this.

I get out more than you do and I know that some Calvinists do what you do, but many do not.

JUSTIFICATION, Larry. Again, explain justification as you know it. But in Calvinism, you can't.

What do you mean I can’t explain it in Calvinism? Justification, as I already said, is God’s declaring us righteous. Did you miss that the first several times?

NOT in total. There are at least 7 mysteries -- there are at least 12 parables. You have given 1 mystery, Larry. Does that satisfy you that you are - 2Cor 3:6 - an "able minister of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit:"? Not me!

I didn’t intend to address all uses of mystery (all though all epistolary uses are basically the same as I recall). In 1 Cor 2, that is the mystery, and that is what I was commenting on. Again, we see your tactic is to confuse and bring in irrelevant issues.

If justification is "set apart," then yes.

No, get out your theological dictionaries. Sanctification (Hagiazo) is set apart; Justification (dikaioneo I believe) is to declare righteous. They are not the same thing.

Will you admit that justification comes before sanctification?

As I have said from the beginning of this conversation and many times in other places, there is a sanctification which follows justification. There is also a sanctification which precedes justification. They are not the same sanctification.

WHAT???? "Scripture won't let you" and yet you dare deny mine??

Yes Scripture demands that I deny yours.

There's a guy on another board who is prewrath who says the same thing.

yes, and the answer there, like here, is found in exegesis. The timing of the rapture is, to be sure, much less clear than this issue you and I are talking about. But in that discussion as in this, the issue is the exegesis of Scripture. And you are not doing that. You are simply trying to defend and protect your own position. And you have ignored or redefined Scripture in order to do that.

Scripture/God tells us MUCH MORE than he or you or Sproul gives Him credit for!

Actually, I think Scripture tells us much more than you will allow. That is what the discussion here is.

 

[skypair]

No, get out your theological dictionaries. Sanctification (Hagiazo) is set apart; Justification (dikaioneo I believe) is to declare righteous. They are not the same thing.

Good! I already know that.

As I have said from the beginning of this conversation and many times in other places, there is a sanctification which follows justification. There is also a sanctification which precedes justification. They are not the same sanctification.

OK, let's nail that down then. The sanctification you see before justification is of people who go to church being set apart to hear the gospel. Is that right? Infants sanctified by a believing parent? Not saved but set apart thereby?

OK, but I have been talking about the sanctification that FOLLOWS justification (in case you couldn't tell). Specifically, no one receives this sanctification (which is the "new birth" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) except they BELIEVE -- except ehy first are JUSTIFIED by God.

Did you or didn't you follow my analogy with Adam's 3 deaths and Christ's 3 lives? Did you follow that one is saved immediately in their soul which is justification BEFORE they are saved progressively in their spirits by the Holy Spirit? Where is your "regeneration" is respect of this justification and sanctification?

skypair