Why...

[donnA]

There are people who do not care what is true and what isn't, only what they think is true, whether or not it actually is.

 

[npetreley]

There are people who do not care what is true and what isn't, only what they think is true, whether or not it actually is.

And, of course, everybody thinks it's the other person who is guilty of this.

 

[donnA]

No, I actually care if I believe something not true, don't you, haven't you ever changed something you believed because you found out it wasn't true?
There are people who refuse to do this, no matter what scripture says.

 

[skypair]

There is a reason for this: You do not know what you are talking about and you are unwilling to deal with us and Scripture fairly.

Wow! I didn't know by "resigning" I would be opening myself for such vicious attacks! And "fairly?" By whose standards? I believe I deal with the words of scripture more "fairly" -- more honestly, at least -- than someone who can say "all" means "all classes, kinds, etc. but not universal 'all'" in situations where God says "but that ALL should come to repentance."

If that is "fair" and "honest," where do you get your standard. Larry? God would have known how to say "all kinds," don't you think??

You sense wrongly because you will not accept what Scripture says on this matter. You have built a house on your own thinking. And that is a dangerous way to do theology.

My "own thinking." Like no Christian agrees with me. Like there is no theologian who believes in free will.

I guess you did think I was "resigning." Always best to discredit someone behind his/her back, isn't it.

I'm sorry you couldn't "get in the mood" of the OP where we start with our salvation and grow toward "the unity of the knowledge and faith of Christ."

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Wow! I didn't know by "resigning" I would be opening myself for such vicious attacks!

There was nothign vicious about it. I simply stated what you have demonstrated here often.

And "fairly?" By whose standards? I believe I deal with the words of scripture more "fairly" -- more honestly, at least -- than someone who can say "all" means "all classes, kinds, etc. but not universal 'all'" in situations where God says "but that ALL should come to repentance."

You are incorrect.

If that is "fair" and "honest," where do you get your standard. Larry? God would have known how to say "all kinds," don't you think??

Yes, he does know how to say all kinds and he did it in many places. You simply deny it. As for 2 Peter 3:9, I tend to agree with you on that verse, but there is a good exegetical case that can be made for the other side. But in other places, the same construction of 2 Peter 3:9 clearly means "all kinds."

My "own thinking." Like no Christian agrees with me. Like there is no theologian who believes in free will.

There certainly are, but again the test is Scripture, not agreement with each other.

I guess you did think I was "resigning." Always best to discredit someone behind his/her back, isn't it.

I wasn't discrediting you behind your back. This is public knowledge and you are still here.

I'm sorry you couldn't "get in the mood" of the OP where we start with our salvation and grow toward "the unity of the knowledge and faith of Christ."

I am very much "in the mood" for unity in the knowledge and faith of Christ. That is what I consistently argue for. But unity is hte knowledge and faith of Christ, and you do not agree about that.

 

[skypair]

donnA, npeterely,

No, I actually care if I believe something not true, don't you, haven't you ever changed something you believed because you found out it wasn't true?
There are people who refuse to do this, no matter what scripture says.

Believe me, donnA. I've "been to the edge" of Cavlinist belief, "looked over the edge," and almost "slipped."

Total depravity is very seductive with its accompanying "born in sin" corollary."

Perserverance of the saints is very comforting and at least partially if not wholly true, also.

That God controls everything (rather than seeing any of God's plans being frustrated) was also very believable until I realized that He totally controls the outcomes and consequences, not our wills.

But that Calvinists can't distinguish between soul and spirit was unsettling. See, scripture reveals a division of soul and spirit and this has HUGE implications for sotierology.

And TULIP fall right into that "gap" in knowledge between T and P. :tear: Calvinist theologians can teach their theology as "systematic" and complete whilest still having "gaps" like "I don't know why God chooses whom He chooses to save" (Do you think maybe people have to believe for God to choose them) or "I don't know how sin entered into creation" (Do you think maybe Satan's fall was a "clue" or that "free moral agency" might?).

Can we work our way through these issues as Christians or do we have to continue in our DISunity in knowedge and faith?

skypair

 

[skypair]

That is a danger, certainly. On the other hand, if beliefs are misrepresented or misunderstood (rather than merely being disagreed with), it is natural that people holding those beliefs will want to do all they can to clear up any misconceptions.

Yes, David -- both sides are surely trying to "wash each other's feet."

In this and similar threads, I have seen many wrong things stated or implied about the reformed faith/doctrines of grace/Calvinism and those who believe it. Here are just four of them:

1. The bible is relegated to a subsidiary position, below the teachings of Calvin.

There is always a suspicion when another text exists. Calvinists rebelled against the same thing with Catholicism -- Bible + tradition. I visited with a Mormon elder years ago and it was "the Bible as interpretted by "The Book of Mormon." It is almost impossible to have a cogent theology without finding these seemingly godly inputs. I mean, even I have pastors I trust and ones I don't. Originally, it was because I wasn't doing my own "spadework" in the scriptures.

2. The reformed faith consists only of the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism".

I, for one, realize it is more complex than that. In fact, as I think about it now, it seems to center mostly on the "sovereignty" issue coming to a "fate vs free will" interpretation of scripture. All else seems to be constructed to "explain" these.

3. The reformed faith teaches that only a few will be saved.

Can't answer to that one. I think we all agree with that.

4. Believers in the reformed faith are hesitant about preaching the gospel to all.

"Hesitant" isn't a good descriptor. In speaking of the early Reform church, I think there was an issue of "deadness" that Jesus told John about (Rev 3:1) where the falatlist aspects of the Bible were more predominant than now. Plus, they were going through a "sacralist" era in which "religion" was trying to separate itself from "state" in accordance with the Bible paradigm of there being "composite state" where all religions are accepted equally and none "drive" the state agenda.

Today Calvinism at least has focused on a better motive for evangelizing. It's not THE motive scripture gives (to reach those who haven't heard since, if they are "elect" they will "hear" anyway and if not "elect," they can't).

Does all this seem to be what you see, David?

In his or her original post, Skypair seems to express frustration in those final words: "Representations to the contrary would NOT be from the "knowledge and faith of Christ" --- they would be from the "knowledge and faith of Calvin," don't you see?"

Those who believe the reformed doctrines may likewise feel frustration: "We keep telling you that the way you describe our belief is mistaken, don't you see?"

We definitely "need a map" to get where we want to go! What do you find incorrect about my observations above?

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, David -- both sides are surely trying to "wash each other's feet."

There is always a suspicion when another text exists. Calvinists rebelled against the same thing with Catholicism -- Bible + tradition. I visited with a Mormon elder years ago and it was "the Bible as interpretted by "The Book of Mormon." It is almost impossible to have a cogent theology without finding these seemingly godly inputs. I mean, even I have pastors I trust and ones I don't. Originally, it was because I wasn't doing my own "spadework" in the scriptures.
(snip)
Does all this seem to be what you see, David?

We definitely "need a map" to get where we want to go! What do you find incorrect about my observations above?

skypair

Thank you Skypair. I think the difficulty I have is with what you say in the sentence, "There is always a suspicion when another text exists," if by "another text" you mean something in addition to the bible, by which (as you see it) those Christians who differ from you measure their beliefs. If that is the case, I must underline in the strongest terms that I believe as I do not because Calvin (or Spurgeon or the 1689 Confession or anyone/anything else) taught it, but because that is what I understand the bible to teach. I'm keeping this short, as I might well have misunderstood what you meant by "another text". Perhaps you could tell me whether I have got your meaning correct. Thanks.

 

[skypair]

Thank you Skypair. I think the difficulty I have is with what you say in the sentence, "There is always a suspicion when another text exists," if by "another text" you mean something in addition to the bible, by which (as you see it) those Christians who differ from you measure their beliefs. If that is the case, I must underline in the strongest terms that I believe as I do not because Calvin (or Spurgeon or the 1689 Confession or anyone/anything else) taught it, but because that is what I understand the bible to teach. I'm keeping this short, as I might well have misunderstood what you meant by "another text". Perhaps you could tell me whether I have got your meaning correct. Thanks.

Another text such as "Institutes" or the "Westminister Confession." The latter is perhaps more distinct as to the line between truth and heresy (the latter which no one, especially no students of scripture, wish to commit). Does that not draw our faith toward one view as against another? Sure it does! It even condemns the other's thoughts by exclusion, right? Do you disclaim such denominational influence in your Christian growth?

But if that gave you pause, you didn't read far enough to consider this apparently -- "In fact, as I think about it now, Calvinism seems to center mostly on the "sovereignty" issue thereby coming to a "fate vs free will" interpretation of scripture. All else seems to be constructed to "explain" these." Is anything and everything only done by the will of God? Does He, then, will that we sin after we are saved?

Yet in reading my devotional yesterday, I come across this -- Col 3:10, "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:" Isn't this what we should strive for in this forum? not to "restrict" salvation either in mind or in practice by any human creed but to bring the gospel to ALL in the belief that God wills all to be saved.

This lost one over here is NOT like Eodipus, of Greek mythology, having no choice but to carry out the fate of his unseen god.

And in this saved one over here -- God has not released His perfect will into his life else he'd sin no more. He still has the residuals of the free will he had before he was saved that needs also to be renewed in "knowledge and faith of Christ."

skypair

 

[skypair]

I am very much "in the mood" for unity in the knowledge and faith of Christ. That is what I consistently argue for. But unity is hte knowledge and faith of Christ, and you do not agree about that.

Oh, I do! Remember? It was me who started this thread.

Where shall we start then, Pilgrim? Our salvation? Our original unity? "One Lord," right? Did He want you to be saved? Did He ever present Himself to you as not wanting you to be saved? Is there someone else that God told you that He wasn't going to save? Does that person look much like you before you were saved? Col 3:5-7 -- "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them."

Where do you come up with the idea that there are some whom God has outright condemned without a trial? without a chance of righteousness? Without a determination of innocence or guilt?

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

Another text such as "Institutes" or the "Westminister Confession." The latter is perhaps more distinct as to the line between truth and heresy (the latter which no one, especially no students of scripture, wish to commit). Does that not draw our faith toward one view as against another? Sure it does! It even condemns the other's thoughts by exclusion, right? Do you disclaim such denominational influence in your Christian growth?

Sorry, Skypair, it seems we are just arguing in circles. You say that my beliefs come from outside Scripture. I try to explain that they don't. You then reply with the suggestion that I must have been drawn to those views by reading works other than the bible. But both "sides" on this issue have works written by their proponents. Just because people have written books about the doctrines of grace/ reformed doctrines, that doesn't automatically mean that those doctrines must be unbiblical. There have been plenty of books written from your standpoint, too, remember.

But if that gave you pause, you didn't read far enough to consider this apparently -- "In fact, as I think about it now, Calvinism seems to center mostly on the "sovereignty" issue thereby coming to a "fate vs free will" interpretation of scripture. All else seems to be constructed to "explain" these." Is anything and everything only done by the will of God? Does He, then, will that we sin after we are saved?

The death of the Lord Jesus Christ provides an excellent example of how something can be sin, but yet be God's will, and the fact that it is God's will takes none of the guilt away from the perpetrators. Acts 2.22-23:

22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know––
23 "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; ​

God's determined purpose, man's lawless hands- the two are not mutually exclusive.

Yet in reading my devotional yesterday, I come across this -- Col 3:10, "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:" Isn't this what we should strive for in this forum? not to "restrict" salvation either in mind or in practice by any human creed but to bring the gospel to ALL in the belief that God wills all to be saved.

Do you really think that people who believe as I do hold back from preaching the gospel to certain people because they might not be among the elect? That is just not so. Believers in reformed truths also seek to bring the gospel to all, because it is "through the foolishness of the message preached" that it pleases God to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1.21)

This lost one over here is NOT like Eodipus, of Greek mythology, having no choice but to carry out the fate of his unseen god.

I don't know much about Oedipus (a bit of a "complex" character?), but if he believed what you say, then this formerly lost one is not like him either; rather, he echoes the words of John Newton's hymn, and says:

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.​

And in this saved one over here -- God has not released His perfect will into his life else he'd sin no more. He still has the residuals of the free will he had before he was saved that needs also to be renewed in "knowledge and faith of Christ."

skypair

I too am sure that I need to be renewed in "knowledge and faith of Christ" as day by day I seek to serve Him, and so often fail Him.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Oh, I do! Remember? It was me who started this thread.

No, you don't agree about the knowledge and faith of Christ. Until you do, on what basis can we have unity?

Where do you come up with the idea that there are some whom God has outright condemned without a trial? without a chance of righteousness? Without a determination of innocence or guilt?

I don't have that idea. I don't know anyone who does. Do you?

 

[skypair]

Sorry, Skypair, it seems we are just arguing in circles. You say that my beliefs come from outside Scripture. I try to explain that they don't. You then reply with the suggestion that I must have been drawn to those views by reading works other than the bible. But both "sides" on this issue have works written by their proponents. Just because people have written books about the doctrines of grace/ reformed doctrines, that doesn't automatically mean that those doctrines must be unbiblical. There have been plenty of books written from your standpoint, too, remember.

David --- No. You asked what I meant by "other texts." I didn't say you believed them. I merely cited a couple and said that people are drawn in.

I agree it happens on both sides (thought I wrote it the first time but maybe not). Anyway, I was only responding to your question.

The death of the Lord Jesus Christ provides an excellent example of how something can be sin, but yet be God's will, and the fact that it is God's will takes none of the guilt away from the perpetrators. Acts 2.22-23:

Not sure I follow. Are you saying it was God's choice that the Jews or Romans kill Jesus rather than Him claim His kingdom at that time? Because I find Jesus saying "How many times would I have gathered you as a hen..." and the point where He said it being just one of those times. So wasn't rejection of the kingdom out of God's hands and against His will and just the first indication that God wouldn't have His will be done, at least not yet?

22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know––
23 "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; ​

God's determined purpose, man's lawless hands- the two are not mutually exclusive.

I'd have to think about whether His will was according to foreknowledge or predestination. Same issue with Adam. Did God purpose for Adam to fall or not? He had to "change His mind" and curse the perfect earth He had just made for Adam. In both cases, it seems to me He foresaw something that changed His initial plan.

Do you really think that people who believe as I do hold back from preaching the gospel to certain people because they might not be among the elect? That is just not so. Believers in reformed truths also seek to bring the gospel to all, because it is "through the foolishness of the message preached" that it pleases God to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1.21)

I don't believe I said that. I meant that some doctrines teach that God withholds the truth from some -- the non-elect who can't "hear." And if we believe and teach those doctrines, we are preaching the word of God.

I don't know much about Oedipus (a bit of a "complex" character?), but if he believed what you say, then this formerly lost one is not like him either; rather, he echoes the words of John Newton's hymn, and says:

Well, the idea with Oedipus would have been that, if he was saved, he was "saved" by "fate" -- by the decision of some god that he would be saved and not by any volition or will on his part. Is that you?

I too am sure that I need to be renewed in "knowledge and faith of Christ" as day by day I seek to serve Him, and so often fail Him.

Well, I just found that out again today on the golf course. raying: I tell you, you can get under conviction so much that it is like your flesh refuses to do right!

skypair

 

[skypair]

No, you don't agree about the knowledge and faith of Christ. Until you do, on what basis can we have unity?

Like I said -- we have the "unity of the Spirit" (Eph 4:3) as a starting point. You are saved, right?

Now let's proceed with the "one Lord" concept. Is He a Lord of fate or a Lord of free will? Which do you see happening to people both in scripture and in creation? Does God let people make choices or not?

I don't have that idea [condemned without a trial]. I don't know anyone who does. Do you?

That seems to me to be the fate of your "non-elect." God "pre-judges" or "pre-condemns" guilt or innocence before they are even born -- "pretrial."

Larry, I am trying to pose this in different ways because it seems so unlike God to do what Calvinists claim He does. As I told David -- I think one of the salient issues is whether we believe in a God Who controls everything and "all is fate" -- "que sera, sera" -- or whether we believe in a God in Whose image He said He made us -- with free will and sovereignty of our own.

Let's just look at that, shall we? Is there any real purpose in us deciding and/or doing anything OR are we to just let life come crashing down around us if so be that that is our fate?

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Like I said -- we have the "unity of the Spirit" (Eph 4:3) as a starting point. You are saved, right?

Yes I am saved. But unity is about more than that. Unity is not just becaues we are saved. We are unified by what we believe.

Now let's proceed with the "one Lord" concept. Is He a Lord of fate or a Lord of free will?

Free will. Man is free to do what he wants to do. Man, like God, is bound only by his nature.

Which do you see happening to people both in scripture and in creation?

Free will. Man acts in accordance with his own nature.

Does God let people make choices or not?

Yes, he let's them make choices.

I think the issue here is that you define free will in a way that is faulty.

That seems to me to be the fate of your "non-elect." God "pre-judges" or "pre-condemns" guilt or innocence before they are even born -- "pretrial."

They are sinful in Adam. They are not innocent. God judges them righteously.

Larry, I am trying to pose this in different ways because it seems so unlike God to do what Calvinists claim He does.

Might that be because your view of God is faulty?

As I told David -- I think one of the salient issues is whether we believe in a God Who controls everything and "all is fate"

Here you have a false argument. A God who controls everything does not lead to fate. I think we have explained this many times.

Is there any real purpose in us deciding and/or doing anything OR are we to just let life come crashing down around us if so be that that is our fate?

Yes, our purpose is to glorify God. Therefore, our decisions are to be driven by that.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Man, like God, is bound only by his nature.

Thank you, sir.
That is a rather eloquent way of putting a stop to this thinking that man has the ability to choose good (good in accordance with how God sees that term) apart from God enabling him to do so.

God's nature is holy. It is His nature to abhor sin, to hate it, and to love good.
He cannot go beyond what His nature allows Him to.
He will not go beyond what His nature allows Him to.
Those are the parameters of His nature.

In the same way the natural man was born at enmity with God.
His nature is that of sin.
Sin permeates every part of his character.
Even when he purports to do good, there is sin lurking at the door.
He cannot go beyond the boundaries of his nature.
What he perceives as good is tainted by sin.

 

[skypair]

Yes I am saved. But unity is about more than that. Unity is not just becaues we are saved. We are unified by what we believe.

Larry, you are already NOT getting what Eph 4:3 and 4:13 say. Eph 4:3 says we are already UNITED in Christ if we are saved. Eph 4:13 says we need to grow in "unity" of what our "knowledge and faith" means!

Free will. Man is free to do what he wants to do. Man, like God, is bound only by his nature.

So even God doesn't have free will? "Bound" by His nature? OK -- BIG problem! If God is "bound," then there is a higher authority than He is. If God is not "free," then neither is man, I will grant you. To what fate is God bound, BTW?

Free will. Man acts in accordance with his own nature.

Which "will" you now admit is neither free in God nor in man, right?

Yes, he let's them make choices.

I think the issue here is that you define free will in a way that is faulty.

Do you still feel this? Like I have said before, does God not sin because He can't or because He won't (WILL not)? God could sin. It is transparently obvious that Christ could have sinned but didn't. It is YOUR notion of free will that is flawed.

They are sinful in Adam. They are not innocent. God judges them righteously.

And so deceased babies go to hell. Or just some of them go to hell because some are "elect" without believing. I know -- we been there before. And that makes sense to you. And most get NO chance to be saved. That's also "Greek mythology."

Might that [my God isn't like that] be because your view of God is faulty?]/quote] Or perhaps yours?? Look, Larry. "One Lord..." Are we going to get past this to "one faith?" Either He is like YOUR "Greek god" of FATE or my Christian God of FREE WILL, wouldn't you agree?? Either some babies are saved without believing OR they at some point will be able to exeercise their free will IAW every human being that was ever born, right? Fate or free will.

Here you have a false argument. A God who controls everything does not lead to fate. I think we have explained this many times.

Do you not see that the God you describe, despite your protests, is a God who predestines everything? IF He predestines everything, then all man has is fate.

Yes, our purpose is to glorify God. Therefore, our decisions are to be driven by that.

But no. We can't decide or do that on our own, Larry. We cannot even be like a "light switch" turning glory on and off. If all is fate/God, then the sin we will to do after we are saved is "of God" as well as the good that we "decide" to do.

I know we have been over this but for David Lamb's benefit, the "Oracle of Delphi" declared that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother. This all happened even though Oedipus thought he was making all the decisions for himself. He killed his father even though he never knew him, much less hate him ("Oedipus complex")!!! Oedipus' god was a god of FATE!! A "free will" God would have let Oedipus make other decisions, don't you see? The whole story would have been "in the trashbin of history" (just like Calvinism should be) if Oedipus 1) would have been slain as a baby (as his father planned), 2) would have made way for the king's chariot, 3) had not answered the "mystery of the sphinx" and this married his mother, blah, blah , blah.

Basically, the god Calvin describes is using us, even us believers, as "pawns" on a chessboard! He is just moving us at His whim and for His glory and that is the impression SATAN wants you to get (similar to the one he gave Eve) -- of a self-centered God who has already "picked" His "elite"/"elect" and even they have no options but His will.

skypair

Is that your god???

 

[npetreley]

(Sending Pastor Larry some virtual ibuprofen.) You have my admiration, support, AND sympathy.

 

[Rippon]

We do serve a "self-centered GOD " ! He does what He does for His own glory , not for the glory of people . His self-centeredness is completely holy and pure .

 

[psalms109:31]

Look at Jesus

We need to diffently take a look at Jesus and His life, do you really see God self-centered.