Why the hatred for Calvanism........

NOT SO! Quite the opposite is true. Although Helen denies that 'The Gospel According to Jesus' is filled with Calvinism, it is, and the thesis of the work is "Lordship Salvation." MacArthur is far from being a "mild Calvinist." Sproul was one of the ones who endorsed that book, along with other leading Calvinists, such as J. M. Boice, etc. Sproul has stated that the controversy of "Lordship Salvation" is a controversy over the issue of the Gospel itself. We believe Ephesians 2:8-9 AND verse 10!

Helen, and others, I think that a misunderstanding you all have about "Calvinism" is that in your line of thinking we deny responsibility and the ability to make choices. We affirm both human responsibility and free moral agency.

Rev. G

 

If "good works" could save, Jesus' crucifixion is of no value.

Good works are the product of Salvation, not the cause of it.

Works done outside of Salvation have no value except as evidence of human righteousness.

 

No disagreement there, Yelswew. That is the "Reformed" position.
Rev. G

 

A question for all that believe that freewill gives man authority over God.

You admit that Adam had freewill... Did that freewill give him authority over God. If not, why do you feel that the concept give men today authority over God.

Did Adam's freewill give him sovereignty over God. Why, why not?

 

That is a very good question, Chappie! I think it would be fair to say that the way "free will" is defined in our day and time tends to make God subject to man's wishes / limited in His ability to do as He pleases.

Adam had free will in the sense that he could choose either good or evil (prior to the Fall). He was not corrupted and under the control of a fallen nature (yet). Believers are in the state of Adam (pre-Fall) - able to choose the good or (grievously so) able to choose the sinful. In heaven we will be completely free from the power and pollution of sin in any form. There we will have the freedom to do nothing but good! I can hardly wait!

Unbelievers now have free will in the sense that they can do whatever they want to do. Their freedom never limits God, though. That is the real heart of the matter in this question. Is God limited by "free will"?

Rev. G

 

Yelsew,

I also agree with your posted dated 10/24 at 11:20. Arminians Christians agree with you on these ideas.

Ray

 

That might be your concept of freewill rev g., but it is not the freewill advocated outside of calvinism. It in no way contends with God. it is given by God, we arecommanded to use it by god. (Choose ye this day, if my people, who are called by my name. Here we have a situation where god calls the sinner and his people to choose.}

How could he chose good or evil, he did not know the difference between the two...

Look up the word "freedom" rev g.

That is the heart of the matter. "NO" it does not limit God.

 

Really, Chappie? Then why do so many speak about "Letting" God do things, or "permitting" God to work in one's life, etc? God doesn't have to ask permission of anyone. He is the Potter, we are the clay.

Rev. G

 

It sounds like you are saying that when Adam sinned he didn't know that he was sinning. He knew God's commandments and he knew he violated God's command not to the eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and he knew what the consequence would be if he did so.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Really, Chappie? Then why do so many speak about "Letting" God do things, or "permitting" God to work in one's life, etc? God doesn't have to ask permission of anyone. He is the Potter, we are the clay.

Rev. G</font>[/QUOTE]The 'letting' part is not about controlling God, it is about controlling our own impatience. I had no idea anyone misunderstood that phrase! It means "Relax, God's in control; quit struggling!" When I hear the phrase "Let God be God" I have never had the slightest thought that somehow He couldn't be God without me! It is exactly the opposite -- He is God whether or not I want to swing into line and it would be far better for me to trust and obey than to try to run things myself. "Let God be in control" and similar phrases are telling us to back off -- there's already somone in charge and all any of us can do is cause hassles by trying to take over His position.

I never knew anyone at all misunderstood what was being said in phrases like that! Now I will certainly be more careful the way I phrase things if it is that easily misunderstood!

and then from Ken:

Adam knew he was disobeying and he knew the consequences. But he did not yet know what evil was. He already knew good because he walked with God and was part of a 'very good' creation. But he did not yet know evil -- which would be one of the results of disobedience.

 

Today's idea of free will is subject to the rule of man and not God, some think. If a human being wills/decides to believe in Jesus this has been the will/wish of Almighty God since eternity past. I Timothy 2:4 in the Greek reads, 'Who/God wishes all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.' Also, [Romans 5:18; Isaiah 45:22; Galatians 2:6; Acts 17:30; Acts 10:34; I Peter 3:18; I John 2:2].

In Calvinists erring ways they believe there is a conflict. Clear Biblical understanding allows us to think properly as we relate what God wills.

Originally, it was God who ' . . . so loved the world . . . ' [John 3:16] {God's will} God so loved all sinners that {human beings will/free will} whosoever believeth . . . '

 

Ken Hamilton,

Adam and Eve did not have to know the difference between 'good and evil.' They were commanded by the sovereign God not to eat of the 'forbidden fruit.' They were given ample information, but because of their free will, chose to disobey the Triune God.

 

It sounds like you are saying that when Adam sinned he didn't know that he was sinning. He knew God's commandments and he knew he violated God's command not to the eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and he knew what the consequence would be if he did so.

Ken
A Spurgeonite </font>[/QUOTE]There were no commandment"s" given at that time Ken, there was but one command; do not eat from the tree in the center of the garden..

Gen 3:4-5
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Adam was created innocent, he had no concept of right and wrong.

[ October 29, 2002, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

The tree of life was in the midst of the garden. Gen. 2.9a The tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden; vs. 17

Even in innocence man "chose" and failed to please God, how can any born in this depravity choose God and better him/herself? In his own will is how Adam fell (an innocent will, without the sin nature which we have inherited). Inability of man proven, Biblically.

Adam received the concept of right and wrong (conscience) after eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. To prevent Adam and Eve from taking of the Tree of life in the midst of the Garden God bans them Gen. 3.22 (this is to prevent man from taking of the tree of life at his pleasure according to his will and perpetuating the fallen lost condition).

If God had meant for man to be able to change his own condition it seems he would have permitted him to remain in the presence of the tree of life; man could not and still cannot improve upon his estate; apart from the drawing of God (the Godhead) working in conjuction to call, redeem and quicken, there is no quickening.

God Bless.

Bro. Dallas

[ October 29, 2002, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

Excellent point, Froggy.

 

To quote John Wayne Bobbit, I'm stumped!!!!

Clue me in here. One day, Jesus is here, then one day, he ascends to heaven. Does that mean the very next day, all people on the earth who haven't accepted him are hellbound? There's no possible way that the jungle folk of borneo would have heard of Jesus a week after pentecost. The Jews didn't even know there was such thing as Borneo!!! So were the people of Borneo hellbound then?

Assuming the answer is "no", why, then, do we assume that a person in Borneo today who has never even seen an offlander would be hellbound in the eyes of God?

 

Again, the classic plea which aligns with Mormonism.

Remember the Flood of Noah's time. All peoples subsequently came from who? Shem, Japheth, and Ham. These ancestors most certainly knew of the everlasting covenant given from the true and living God; they certainly knew of the deliverance of God by Grace bestowed upon themselves; view the tower of Babel; confusion of tongues, culminating in ultimately our present world ethnicities; look forward to Romans 1.18-32 and perhaps 2 & 3 also.

The point is; no tribe, nation, man, or woman is without excuse before God; Noah and his sons knew the promise of God in Gen. 3.15; they knew the meaning of the coats of skin God made for Adam and Eve; Noah built an altar and sacrificed when leaving the ark; Almost all ancient cultures have a story similar to the Biblical account of the flood; all peoples knew these things from the first; but as Romans 1.28 tells us: "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."

For example, the Montilone Indian tribe of Colombia and Venezuala were isolated from civilization (killing or attempting to kill any who wandered into their territories, even other Montilone). In the 1960's an eighteen year old was burdened for this people. Established missionary agencies would not receive him; he stepped out in faith and made contact with the a portion of the tribe; who nearly killed him and would have if he had not initially escaped. The burden still present however, he returned. This action surprised them and they grew "curious" of him.

As he stayed with the people he began to learn their customs language etc. and learned they had a belief that God once walked the world among men; in doing this he showed to man the "trail of life," they had fallen off this trail of life and could not find it. They knew it was there, but could not see it. But they believed God would someday send someone to show them the way back to that trail. Isolated as they were, they still knew the ancient promise of God to redeem man through the seed.

I do not think God is going to let people perish just because they do not know civilization as we do; I think rather in the appointed time he has set to take his elect from among these isolated tribes, he will send one of His servants to them.

God Bless.

Bro. Dallas

[ October 30, 2002, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

Excellant post Frogman. Well, all except that elect stuff at the very end. (Depending on how you meant it.}

 

C'mon Helen! You know better than that!

Rev. G

 

Is this really consistent with your position when you insist that God is not in control of salvation but rather let's men make their own choices?? This seems a great inconsistency. Incidentally, I agree with you here; I disagree with your theology.