Why...

[skypair]

No. He doesn't decide for us what pair of socks we wear,...

So you DID sovereignly choose your socks? But you said "He is always sovereign." Which is it?

If you feel more comfortable in thinking that in some ways man reigns supreme over God ...

My but we do exaggerate, don't "we?" Just because we choose our own socks, we "reign supreme over God?" Well, OK. So you would say that if we choose to believe, repent, and receive Christ that we would be "supremely" telling God to His face that He has to take us into heaven?

I don't think so. See, I think God sovereignly promises to do so is why we are saved for doing those things.

To you God is like Kasparov who sits down in a chess game, not knowing the first move of the opponent and therefore having no game plan until the first move is made, after which he anticipates what the next moves would be and what countermoves he is going to make, and ultimately comes out the winner because he is master of this game.

That's a legitmate analogy, yes. All foreseen in eternity past, but yeah.

skypair

 

[pinoybaptist]

So you DID sovereignly choose your socks? But you said "He is always sovereign." Which is it?

I could almost think I am speaking with a ten year old, discussing this with you. A ten year old out to prove he is always right and smart, and the other side always wrong and dumb. With small boys like these one needs to be patient, so I will be patient with you, and not yet breathe fire.

Here goes:

Choosing the socks you wear, skypair, has nothing to do with sovereignty. It has everything to do with what comes naturally in your environment and culture.
If you were a savage living in some rain forest somewhere you would probably be choosing which g-string or which tree to choose to get the leaves with which to cover yourself with, because that is the culture of your tribe.
Or you will probably not even worry about stuff like that at all.
There was a time when women in the polynesian islands went topless, and the only decision they probably had to make was to choose which flower to put on their hair to complement their breasts.
Tomorrow I will wear a tie to church, and the tie is going to be a tri-colored silk tie, with the dominant color matching my shirt, and the hanky to boot.
That has got nothing to do with sovereignty at all.
That has something to do with self-respect, respect for the people around me, respect for my wife who I will be going to church with, and because American culture tells me I cannot go around naked as the day I was born.

On the other hand, the dictionary, if you have one, defines sovereignty as:

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.

For #1 and 4, we need to rule out the sovereign state, because God is not a state. He is a being. So, that means we need to define what a Sovereign is. It is not the coin used in England that went out of circulation sometime in the last century.

A sovereign is one who has supreme rank or authority. Define supreme: highest in rank, or authority.

Choosing which socks to wear does not mean you have high rank or authority. It means you have taste.

Since God is the Creator of the Universe and everything else in it, and there was no God, is no God, or will be another God before, or after Him, then it is suffice to say He is the Supremely Highest Authority in the entire universe.

His authority stems from Himself, He is answerable to no one, accountable to no one, and bows to no one.

On the contrary, ALL, bow to Him, ALL are accountable to Him, and Nebuuchadnezzar found that out the hard way, and having found it out, was moved to say:
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? (Daniel 4:35).

Because God is sovereign, He therefore can say to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and compassion on whom I will have compassion.

In due time, every knee under heaven and earth, no exception, will bow their knees to Christ, who is God, and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Because God is Sovereign, He forgives whom He will, and brings to account whom He will, because there is none among His creation, you, me, Satan, Judas, Paul, Peter, Samson, Moses, Elijah, Enoch, Rippon, Pastor Larry, Arminius, Calvin, who can question that sovereignty because "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God", therefore all are subject to His mercy, and His mercy is not cheap.

Just because He shows mercy to some doesn't mean He must show mercy to all.

You, and I, we are not sovereign. We have no kingdom we rule over, instead we are part of a kingdom, if so be that we are both children of God. We are part of the kingdom of light.

And before you, and I became children of light, subjects of the kingdom of light, we were first subjects of another kingdom, where there IS a sovereign, whose name is Satan, albeit his sovereignty is limited to how much God allows him to act as a sovereign.

So, you see, we were never sovereigns.

Before God quickened you, you did not sovereignly choose Christ, because first of all, your sin-laden body was sovereign over you. Your flesh was sovereign over you, and Satan was sovereign over you. You could only do what your sinful self can allow you to do, and beyond that you were utterly helpless.

Now I know that is an abomination to pride which still dwells in many of us, but that is truth, and since I consider you to be a brother in Christ no matter how I dislike your style I must tell you the truth because true love is bounded by truth.

It is much more appealing to the flesh to believe and to think that, somehow, someway, we did sovereignly choose Christ, no thanks to anyone, especially God. We did it on our own. Hallelujah !! Ain't God a great God ? Sovereign in such a way as to allow us freedom to choose because that doesn't in any way alter or threaten His sovereignty !!

Great to hear.

Unfortunately, it is not so.

Because we have no sovereignty over sin.

End of Sovereignty 101-A, skypair.

 

[pinoybaptist]

So you would say that if we choose to believe, repent, and receive Christ that we would be "supremely" telling God to His face that He has to take us into heaven?

But you see, skypair, no one chose to believe, repent, and receive Christ.
Not you.
Not I.
Not Paul.
Not Peter.
Not any of the disciples.
Certainly no one in the Scriptural New Testament church in Acts.

Show me one Scriptural instance where somebody chose to believe, repent, and receive Christ.

Jesus Christ Himself said :

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
(Jn 6:44).

How are you going to twist these words to say what you want it to say to fit your theology ?

 

[npetreley]

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
(Jn 6:44).

How are you going to twist these words to say what you want it to say to fit your theology ?

Ooh, ooh, I know! He's going to say that the Father draws all men, therefore all can come to Him.

You have to wonder why Jesus would make a distinction if the Father is going to draw all men, but that never stopped a free-willer before.

 

[skypair]

Choosing the socks you wear, skypair, has nothing to do with sovereignty. It has everything to do with what comes naturally in your environment and culture.

Here's my point --- what's the difference between CHOOSING Christ and choosing socks?? What is the difference in the process? Both are decisions -- both are made in your mind/spirit.

Tomorrow I will wear a tie to church, and the tie is going to be a tri-colored silk tie, with the dominant color matching my shirt, and the hanky to boot.
That has got nothing to do with sovereignty at all.

How do you know that?? Are you saying that is NOT part of God's sovereign plan for your life??

On the other hand, the dictionary, if you have one, defines sovereignty as:

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.

1. And YOU added "always," did you not? C'mon, pinoy, you're saying "always" when it suits you and denying it when it would obviously look ridiculous.
   
   

   [*]Complete independence and self-government.

   You made the decision yourself, didn't you say?
   
   

   A sovereign is one who has supreme rank or authority. Define supreme: highest in rank, or authority.

   I agree. And does that "sovereign" tell you what tie to wear? Does it tell you who to believe in? If the gov't did, you'd object in a heartbeat! Now suppose you are lost and God tells you to believe. Do you obey or reject? Who is sovereign then? It's who you choose -- either self or God.
   
   Choosing which socks to wear does not mean you have high rank or authority. It means you have taste.
   
   

   His authority stems from Himself, He is answerable to no one, accountable to no one, and bows to no one.

   Clearly, pinoy --- but if someone doesn't admit that, God is not going to force them with His sovereignty, is He??
   
   

   On the contrary, ALL, bow to Him,...

   Scripture says "every knee WILL bow." They clearly don't now.
   
   skypair

 

[HankD]

This bickering reminds me of the following passage of Scripture...

Judges 12

5 And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay;
6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

HankD​

 

[skypair]

Sorry, had to move the sprinkler.

Because God is sovereign, He therefore can say to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Sure, I'll buy that. And if the outcome He wants calls for punishment or chastisement or wrath, He will have no mercy (or less mercy).

Because God is Sovereign, He forgives whom He will, and brings to account whom He will, ... who can question that sovereignty because "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God", therefore all are subject to His mercy, and His mercy is not cheap.

OK, what do you mean by this? that we pay for God's mercy??

You, and I, we are not sovereign. We have no kingdom we rule over,...

That's where you are wrong. We have our bodies -- we have our families -- we have those who are our subordinants at work, etc. Just like the centurion. Jesus said, "I have not seen such faith..." because the centurion realized that authority in whatever setting is sovereignty -- the ability to make the decisions and be responsible!

...we were first subjects of another kingdom, where there IS a sovereign, whose name is Satan, albeit his sovereignty is limited to how much God allows him to act as a sovereign.

NOW you got it!! And so free will says we are sovereign as to our decision whether to accept or deny Christ! Calvinist still insist that they are sovereign over nothing and that God decides everything -- is "always sovereign." Do you see it now?

Before God quickened you, you did not sovereignly choose Christ, because first of all, your sin-laden body was sovereign over you. Your flesh was sovereign over you, and Satan was sovereign over you. You could only do what your sinful self can allow you to do, and beyond that you were utterly helpless.

No, I reject this. I am subject to sin which I committed of my own free will in ignorance. It was good -- I repeated it -- I bacame servant to it. That means my SOUL died, but not my spirit (my mind/intellect). I could still think. I could still listen to a "proposition" and evaluate it and, if the Holy Spirit was in it, I might even see the truth!

"...and since I consider you to be a brother in Christ no matter how I dislike your style I must tell you the truth because true love is bounded by truth.

Thank you, pinoy. Likewise me you (since you wear TIES to church). :laugh: And, yes, truth IS a major aspect of love.

It is much more appealing to the flesh to believe and to think that, somehow, someway, we did sovereignly choose Christ, no thanks to anyone, especially God.

Now how can you have such a perverse notion of my salvation?? I mean really -- you are treating me like a "gutter snipe" again! What tells you that my flesh had ANYTHING to do with it?? You can only have inferred that from your perverse Calvinist orientation! Yeah, the flesh was considered -- I was a smoker and knew God didn't like that (among other things. It is a sad case because my mom eventually died from emphasema and so I was cought in her pre-Christian fleshly mindset.). But one thing the preacher said is "You can't clean up for God so don't wait until you think you are. Give your life to Him today. He's the only One who can save you eternally and in this life as well."

I would say to you that if you are relying on a "passive" salvation (you are assuming you are "elect" without any repentance, prayer of thanks, confession), you haven't responded to God's call yet. I have seen men and women in liberal Calvinist churches that think that because they understand what the pastor is saying (Eph 2:14) that they are "elect." Pastor Larry is getting the idea -- salvation IS conditional on the Sacrifice and active, not passive, belief!

skypair

 

[skypair]

Ooh, ooh, I know! He's going to say that the Father draws all men, therefore all can come to Him.

You have to wonder why Jesus would make a distinction if the Father is going to draw all men, but that never stopped a free-willer before.

No -- tried that. No Calvinist takers so far. They don't believe what God says, do they? Better listen to Calvin instead.

"Jesus make a distinction?" Jesus came to save the world, not to condemn. It is the person who condemns him/herself by his/her decision.

skypair

 

[skypair]

This bickering reminds me of the following passage of Scripture...

Judges 12

5 And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay;
6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

HankD​

Yup. It's silly this "quibbling" amongst the children of God when He wants us to unite in "knowledge and faith" after we are united in Spirit. Some have, unfortunately, learned a new vocabulary. Sad.

skypair

 

[skypair]

But you see, skypair, no one chose to believe, repent, and receive Christ.
Not you.
Not I.
Not Paul.
Not Peter.
Not any of the disciples.
Certainly no one in the Scriptural New Testament church in Acts.

So are you saying you are not saved? Are you NOT going to take responsibility for believing on Christ (we call that "confessing Him" in the Baptist church)? Are you trying to avoid Jesus?

Show me one Scriptural instance where somebody chose to believe, repent, and receive Christ.

Oh, let's see. The Philippian jailor, the Ethiopian eunoch, the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19, ... How many more you want?

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

election is the RESULT of salvation, not a precondition to it.

Can you show us this from Scripture? I have seen this often repeated but have yet to see anyone show us where God said it.

See, "election"/predestination comes after foreknowledge in Rom 8:29, does it not? Is that the order Rom 8:29 has it?

Yes.

And foreknowledge was God's knowledge beforehand ...

No it's not. Foreknowledge is his gracious choice. Again, as we have said before, do the word study.

 

[HankD]

Why...

This is the name of the opening post.

So, why can't both "calvin"-ism and "Arminius"-ism be true?

Or, Why can't the Sovereignty of God and the free-will of man both be true.
Is God unable to create a being with free-will?

Aren't all things possible with God?

A few years ago I read in the paper of an orange farmer who said that after 20 years of growing oranges, this year was both the largest and the smallest crop he had ever grown.

How can both those seemingly opposed statements be true?

I understood after I read the explanation how it was indeed true.

The farmer later went on to say that because of the climactic conditions of the year, his oranges were the largest in individual size and weight he had ever grown and therefore by weight it was the largest crop ever.

However there were far fewer oranges, so although the crop was the largest in size and weight it was in number the smallest crop that he had ever grown.

This is/was an earthly riddle, how much more the things of God?

After 4000+ years we still haven't figured it out and probably won't this side of heaven.


HankD

 

[HankD]

Dear brethren,

Here is a good read as to our responsibility as lights in a dark world and the balance we should maintain in our dealings with the world versus other Christians who may not agree with our point of view.

The author is Harry Ironside.
He was a different breed of man.
Not that he was better than today's breed of men, just different.

And a difference that makes a difference IMO.

http://www.wholesomewords.org/etexts/ironside/care6.html


HankD

 

[skypair]

Can you show us this from Scripture? I have seen this often repeated but have yet to see anyone show us where God said it.

Here's one and it seems at first blush to support predestination but doesn't -- Acts 13:48, "...and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." The Greek word for ordained is "tasso." Nowhere does in speak of God's decree as Calvinists think. Instead, many Greek scholars on account of other verses like Acts 15:1, etal. translate the verse "as many as disposed themselves to eternal life to believe."

I'll come back and edit this post in a moment. Gotta put my thinking cap on. :laugh:

Here's another one Calvies debate but which shows election is preceded by foreknowledge -- 1Pet 1:2 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:..." They were elect according to these things that were pre-conditions 1) God's foreknowledge (which is NOT election), 2) the sanctification of the Spirit indwelling and 3) obedience and sprinkling of blood of Jesus which is through belief and repentance.

1Thes 1:4-5 is instructive as well, "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. 5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake." Was the knowledge of their election the gospel? Or was it the power and the Holy Ghost (gifts). Well, Paul says election wasn't in the word only but, IMO, in power and gifts after believing the word.

No it's not. Foreknowledge is his gracious choice. Again, as we have said before, do the word study.

Do the word study by referring to theologians in whose concordances they don't want to leave out any optional interpretation. I think not, Larry. How about a scrpture study? Try Acts 26:4-5 where Paul defends himself and says that Agrippa knew him (Paul) "from the beginning" (of his ministry, no doubt). 2Pet 3:17 "ye know ["progonisko" again] these things before." And don't even go to the "yada" subterfuge.

Though I have apparently just done it, Paul warns Timothy in 2Tim 2:14 not to engage in word studies --- "charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers." This is really about attaching some "gimmicky" interpretation to a word that everyone knows the common meaning of.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Here's one and it seems at first blush to support predestination but doesn't -- Acts 13:48, "...and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." The Greek word for ordained is "tasso." Nowhere does in speak of God's decree as Calvinists think. Instead, many Greek scholars on account of other verses like Acts 15:1, etal. translate the verse "as many as disposed themselves to eternal life to believe."

You are incorrect. This verse means that God ordained peopel to eternal life and they believed after that. Your position has been soundly refuted here many times.

Here's another one Calvies debate but which shows election is preceded by foreknowledge -- 1Pet 1:2 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:..." They were elect according to these things that were pre-conditions 1) God's foreknowledge (which is NOT election), 2) the sanctification of the Spirit indwelling and 3) obedience and sprinkling of blood of Jesus which is through belief and repentance.

God's foreknowledge is not election, but this verse doesn't show election coming as a result of belief or salvation.

1Thes 1:4-5 is instructive as well, "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. 5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake." Was the knowledge of their election the gospel? Or was it the power and the Holy Ghost (gifts). Well, Paul says election wasn't in the word only but, IMO, in power and gifts after believing the word.

No, Paul doesn't say that. He knows their election. He talks about how the gospel came.

So you are 0 for 3. As has everyone who has ever tried to support hat position. Regardless of what you think election is, it is never in Scripture said to be the result of faith. You have to go to man for that.

Do the word study by referring to theologians in whose concordances they don't want to leave out any optional interpretation. I think not, Larry. How about a scrpture study? Try Acts 26:4-5 where Paul defends himself and says that Agrippa knew him (Paul) "from the beginning" (of his ministry, no doubt). 2Pet 3:17 "ye know ["progonisko" again] these things before." And don't even go to the "yada" subterfuge.

You can find all the options and it will show that you are wrong. Again, we have shown this time and time again.

Though I have apparently just done it, Paul warns Timothy in 2Tim 2:14 not to engage in word studies --- "charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers." This is really about attaching some "gimmicky" interpretation to a word that everyone knows the common meaning of.

Paul didn't forbid word studies. He was talking about something else.

Your handling of the word is sloppy. It is designed by you to arrive at your predetermined conclusions. It is an abuse of Scripture.

 

[jonnycool]

Hello HankD.

So, why can't both "calvin"-ism and "Arminius"-ism be true?

There is a gulf set between them. Light and dark. Life and death. Truth and lies. Sheep and goats. Semi-Pelagianism is just the same as it's father.

Or, Why can't the Sovereignty of God and the free-will of man both be true.

DA 4:35 All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?"

PS 2:2 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One. 3 "Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters." 4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.

The free will of man is in fetters and chains. The Lord scoffs. PS 94:11 The LORD knows the thoughts of man; he knows that they are futile.

Is God unable to create a being with free-will?

He is unable to create a being with free will because that would mean power sharing and 'Sovereign Lord', 'Despot', losses it's meaning.

Aren't all things possible with God?

No, He cannot hate me or love those He intends to burn.

However there were far fewer oranges, so although the crop was the largest in size and weight it was in number the smallest crop that he had ever grown.

You're comparing oranges with oranges.

After 4000+ years we still haven't figured it out and probably won't this side of heaven.

Of course it is worked out, some were right. Us

john.

 

[WaltRiceJr]

Here's another one Calvies debate but which shows election is preceded by foreknowledge -- 1Pet 1:2 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:..." They were elect according to these things that were pre-conditions 1) God's foreknowledge (which is NOT election), 2) the sanctification of the Spirit indwelling and 3) obedience and sprinkling of blood of Jesus which is through belief and repentance.

Election by common definition and scriptural use is a choice, God's choice in this case. Yes, indeed, election is preceded by (ACCORDING TO) foreknowledge. All those whom God "foreknows," he also elects (predestines). Romans 8:28-30.

But your conditional explanation gets sloppy, because the other things are not the precursors to election, but rather the method (#2, THROUGH the sanctification of the Spirit) and outworking or result (#3, UNTO obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus) of election. Simple grammar, no Greek necessary. Check other translations if you like.

 

[HankD]

Of course it is worked out, some were right. Us

I don't know about that cool, granted you may be right, but...

NKJ Ecclesiastes 8:17 then I saw all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; moreover, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it.
​

NKJ 1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
​

There is so much strife engendered by the Calvin vs Aminius "debate" among Christians that something is definitely wrong with at least the waring participants :

1 Corinthians 3

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?​

Innuendo is made on both sides concerning the quality and character of the faith of the opposing individuals that it proves the Scripture above (not that it needs proving).

IMO, It is indeed a proof text indictment against the whole thing.

As Ironside said, it is brother against brother often both clearly displaying the fruit of the Spirit yet destroying the fruit through the strife.


HankD

 

[skypair]

You are incorrect. This verse means that God ordained peopel to eternal life and they believed after that. Your position has been soundly refuted here many times.

So you'd be saying you are ignoring "tasso?" Or that you prefer to be blind to it? You're not even going to do the word study you want me to do? What, Larry? Other places it means "determined" not predetermined.

So you are 0 for 3. As has everyone...

Everyone is not working from your book, I'd guess.

Regardless of what you think election is, it is never in Scripture said to be the result of faith.

And it has never been shown to be elected unto salvation, either.

Your handling of the word is sloppy. It is designed by you to arrive at your predetermined conclusions. It is an abuse of Scripture.

Actually, yesterday I went to Dave Hunt's work to answer you. Your objection has nothing to do with my sloppy work and everything to do with my contrary proof.

I am very sad for you because you can't answer the critical questions regarding Calvinism. You didn't go to the passages I highlighted to refutation. You passed off Hunt's and other's critiques as if they weren't worth a closer look. Maybe we should at this point call you "Pharoah Larry."

skypair

 

[skypair]

Election by common definition and scriptural use is a choice, God's choice in this case. Yes, indeed, election is preceded by (ACCORDING TO) foreknowledge. All those whom God "foreknows," he also elects (predestines). Romans 8:28-30.

But your conditional explanation gets sloppy, because the other things are not the precursors to election, but rather the method (#2, THROUGH the sanctification of the Spirit) and outworking or result (#3, UNTO obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus) of election. Simple grammar, no Greek necessary. Check other translations if you like.

I see what you are saying. It seems to make sense, too. Elect according to 1) God's foreknowledge (before creation). Then in the course of time, 2) the sanctification of the Spirit would be our repenting and receiving Christ and 3) thereafter we would obey and "sprinkle"or share the blood of Christ with others 4) fulfilling the purpose or "election." This coincides with "making our "calling"/salvation (#2-3) and "election"/purpose (#4) sure," right? Is that more what you were looking for?

skypair