The only thing getting clearer is your wacky ideas . You haven't said any sound things since you started on the BB. You have been told over and over how wrong you are . We have documented your misrepresentations . You continue with your mischaracterizations . You swim in mystical waters SP. Your terminology is a puzzle at times . We say we do not hold to what you insist we do . You continue on anyway .
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why...
- Thread starter skypair
- Start date
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
skypair said:
But it is you, not I, who keeps on about "the God of Calvin". In fact I don't believe that Calvin "modelled" "his God" on anything or anyone, but even if he did, that would make no difference to me, because as I have mentioned once or twice before
I believe as I do because that is how I understand the bible, not, repeat not because Calvin believed it or taught it. I know I have not convinced you that the bible teaches what I believe - I don't even think I've manage to correct your patently false ideas about what I do believe, but I've tried.skypair said:
Frustrated, maybe, but I don't take offence easily.
David (or anyone for that matter)
1) humans seemed to be the "playthings" of the gods (Calvin's God apparently controls everything and "elects" or condemns for His own "pleasure" and "glory"),
2) humans couldn't know whether they were going to "the River Styx" or to "Alysium Fields" when they die (as seems to be the case for the Calvin's "elect"),
3) the Greek gods do all for their own glory (same with Calvin's God according to Calvinists),
4) the "demi-gods" were born of the gods with no choice in the matter (same for the "elect"),
5) and from the human perspective, "all was fate" -- no human "input" into the gods' plans (same with Calvin's God) or how they work out.
BTW, did you learn anything about "spiritual death" or what the "natural man" is able to understand or about the "mustard seed" parable from my previous post?
skypair
OK, I wasn't so concerned about whether you believe Calvin or not but whether you see the analogy between Greek Zeus (for instance) and "Calvin's" God. The salient issues of correspondence to me are:David Lamb said:But it is you, not I, who keeps on about "the God of Calvin". In fact I don't believe that Calvin "modelled" "his God" on anything or anyone, but even if he did, that would make no difference to me, because as I have mentioned once or twice before
1) humans seemed to be the "playthings" of the gods (Calvin's God apparently controls everything and "elects" or condemns for His own "pleasure" and "glory"),
2) humans couldn't know whether they were going to "the River Styx" or to "Alysium Fields" when they die (as seems to be the case for the Calvin's "elect"),
3) the Greek gods do all for their own glory (same with Calvin's God according to Calvinists),
4) the "demi-gods" were born of the gods with no choice in the matter (same for the "elect"),
5) and from the human perspective, "all was fate" -- no human "input" into the gods' plans (same with Calvin's God) or how they work out.
BTW, did you learn anything about "spiritual death" or what the "natural man" is able to understand or about the "mustard seed" parable from my previous post?
skypair
Last edited by a moderator:
skypair said:
Your statement implies to me, at least, that you are judging Calvin to be a condemned soul because he does not worship the Christian God. Is that what you are saying ?
And what do you have against God doing what He pleases to do for His own pleasure and glory ?
Last edited by a moderator:
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
skypair said:
The Greek myths may resemble what you think "Calvinism" is, but they certainly don't describe what I believe, nor, I suspect do they square with the beliefs of anyone on this Board. The faith of the Reformers does not teach that human beings are God's "playthings". Nor does it teach that we cannot know we are going to heaven, nor that the elect do not choose Christ, nor that there is no human "input" (if by that you mean that you think we are denying the necessity of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ).
You still seem very intent on telling other people what they believe, rather than accepting what they say they believe, even if you don't believe it yourself.
I am afraid what you said about the "natural man" and the "mustard seed" didn't make much sense to me. I am still faced with Paul telling Christians at Ephesus that before God saved them, they had been dead. You mentioned the fact that Christians sin after they have been converted. You wrote:
"Let me ask you -- do you ever live "in the flesh," ever "carnally minded," despite being saved? Paul preceded this discussion by saying that he still warred against the flesh and saw "another law" there. Do you?"
Of course, to my shame I do. So did the Christians in Corinth to whom Paul wrote those words about the natural man. But he's not telling them that they are still "natural men" - quite the opposite in fact.
This thread seems now to include so many topics that (to me) it is becoming too unweildy to keep up with. We've had Greek mythology, Dispensationalism (your "seven ages"), denominations, whether man is bipartite or tripartite, the fall of Satan, fate, whether God's will is free, an unusual interpretation of the parable of the mustard seed, the idea that Christ came to offer Israel the opportunity to reign over the world with Him, the reality of Christ's temptation .... those are just some of them
Regards,
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a direct denial of Romans 5:12-19
Amy was wrong as well. It is free will.
What? God extending Hezekiah’s life and stopping the sun and other things are works of grace and mercy.Hmm. Getting pretty smokey in here."Grace" and "mercy," eh? So God didn't really miraculously extend Hezekiah's life? He didn't miraculously "break His own laws of nature" and stop the sun once in its tracks and run its course backwards another time obliging the prayers of His saints? I find it facinating that your God can do nothing more that an Indian totem pole when it is prayed to -- that is give "grace" and "mercy" (or should we say a "warm fuzzy?").
Satan’s “control” is under the control of God. Satan does nothing without God’s permission and control over him.
Here’s an interesting contradiction that I am quite sure you will hate having pointed out. When it comes to a lack of intervention in election, you like to say that God’s lack of intervention is in fact a choosing to send people to hell. When it comes to a lack of intervention in death, you want to absolve God of responsibility. So is God’s lack of action his will or is it not? Make up your mind so we know which SP to argue with.
I don’t know how famous the quote it, but it’s not fate, and God’s will is always what happens. There is no doubt about that. He says “My purpose will be accomplished” and “No one can thwart his will.” You seem to deny that as well.
No, what I mean is that when my MIL died, it was the will of God for it to happen in that way at that time. When my wife miscarried, it was the will of God for it to happen in that way at that time. That was not out of the control of God.
No, you are not catching on. The comment by the pastor may have been the surface issue, but it was not the root issue. I had a lady once who would not come back to church because I had the audacity that preach that a woman should be a wife before a mother. Her unwed motherhood was not the reason she didn’t come back and my comments were not the reason. She didn’t come back because of rebellion against God.
I accept foreknowledge. I reject your definition of it since it does not fit the biblical usage.on foreknowledge said:
Never having prayed for a parking place near the front door (I usually don’t take the real close ones choosing to leave them for others), and never having had a heart ailment, I will say that sometimes God works through healing and sometimes through comfort (2 Cor 12:9).
No I wouldn’t since I can never be a good pastor while preaching things that are not true. I would be erecting a false god and asking people to worship that. I refuse.
pinoybaptist said:
Please, pinoy -- don't take this thread where it wasn't headed. I established/presumed that ALL who were in this discussion are believers, saved. I started the thread to begin to establish "unity of the knowledge and faith of the Son of God" per Eph 4:13. This is where God wants us to grow to as a church.
The first topic that came up was (with Larry I believe) "do we as a saved people defined our God properly." As the discussion proceeded, it became more and more clear to me that the God of Calvinism resembled the Greek notion of their gods. Can we discuss that and compare that to scripture?
The God of the Bible to me is greater than that. Doesn't just the sound of what you just said about God seem a little selfish of Him and and little shallow of us?
skypair
OK, you are avoiding the issue. So they are not "playthings" -- but if they have no say in what happens on earth, they are little more than that. When you played in the sandbox as a child, did you have to control all your toys or did they get out of hand and require wrath, chastisement, etc?David Lamb said:
By manifestation of works, right? But does that make you sure? And here's what Calvin said:
"Among the temptations with which Satan assaults believers, none is greater or more perilous, than when disquieting them with doubts as to their election, he at the same time stimulates them with a depraved desire of inquiring after it out of the proper way ... I mean when puny man endeavors to penetrate into the hidden recesses of the divine wisdom ... in order that he may understand what final determination God has made with regard to him."
Right there Calvin says it is foolish (and the "wrong way") for man to try to know whether he is saved or not.
Plenty have told me otherwise, David, though many also tell me that they chose Him before they knew about Calvinism.
Most Calvinists tell me that they were "passive" in the process of salvation -- that they do not attribute their belief for their salvation but the reverse and that salvation is "monergistic" -- "foisted" on them (if you will excuse the bluntness of what goes for "irresistible grace") and without condition on their part. See, to me belief would be a condition for receiving salvation and regeneration. If something is "foisted" on you, it would be like your natural birth -- as if you were born of the gods in the Greek "religion."
I hope you realize that I am responding, not to your testimony but to that of a majority of Calvinists i read here and elsewhere.
Yes, but dead in which of facet of their being? Body - No. Spirit - They weren't brain dead yet, were they? They could still hear the gospel and be saved or by what faculty within their personality do you think that God "latched onto" them and they were saved?
Right -- he called the "perfect" in fact! They were saved and so now they could understand more than just the gospel by which they had been converted from their "natural" state.
Believe me, they all touch on who God is and how we should perceive Him. It is a compicated issue but I will try to refrain getting sidetracked unnecessarily in the future,This thread seems now to include so many topics that (to me) it is becoming too unweildy to keep up with. We've had Greek mythology, Dispensationalism (your "seven ages"), denominations, whether man is bipartite or tripartite, the fall of Satan, fate, whether God's will is free, an unusual interpretation of the parable of the mustard seed, the idea that Christ came to offer Israel the opportunity to reign over the world with Him, the reality of Christ's temptation .... those are just some of them
Regards back at you, :jesus:
skypair
Well I have had my laugh for the day . SP said not to take this thread off from the OP . As if he has always been steering a straight course . His piloting skills are in question regarding staying on-topic , not to mention his lack of biblical bearings .
Psalm 115 :1 -- Not to us , O Lord , not to us but to your name be the glory ...
Psalm 115:3 -- Our God is in heaven ; he does whatever pleases him .
Psalm 135:6 -- The Lord does whatever pleases him , in the heavens and on the earth , in the seas and all their depths .
Job 23:13 -- But he stands alone , and who can oppose him ? He does whatever he pleases .
The preceeding verses do not display God's selfishness . God can't be selfish -- it is a contradiction . Sinful humanity is selfish . God is centered on Himself .He has no sin -- He is Holiness personified . Contray to being a shallow thing to think on -- it is good for the soul to contemplate the Lord's greatness and all His perfections . All glory , honor and praise devolve on Him . ( That's why we call Him LORD .)
Daniel 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 ? "
Psalm 115 :1 -- Not to us , O Lord , not to us but to your name be the glory ...
Psalm 115:3 -- Our God is in heaven ; he does whatever pleases him .
Psalm 135:6 -- The Lord does whatever pleases him , in the heavens and on the earth , in the seas and all their depths .
Job 23:13 -- But he stands alone , and who can oppose him ? He does whatever he pleases .
The preceeding verses do not display God's selfishness . God can't be selfish -- it is a contradiction . Sinful humanity is selfish . God is centered on Himself .He has no sin -- He is Holiness personified . Contray to being a shallow thing to think on -- it is good for the soul to contemplate the Lord's greatness and all His perfections . All glory , honor and praise devolve on Him . ( That's why we call Him LORD .)
Daniel 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 ? "
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, let's seePastor Larry said:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
PD OK, sin entered the world by Adam and death entered by his sin -- so PHYSICAL DEATH passed to all men, NOT sin. All have sinned but remember, "all" means only the "elect." :laugh: "for that all have sinned" -- what does that tell you, Larry? 1) All have actually sinned themselves -- not in Adam.
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
See, right there -- no law, no imputed sin! Yes, all eventually sinned but none was imputed to them. They did it themselves is what I read, don't you?
]14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
See there -- they all sinned themselves. Adam's was only a "prefiguring" of the fact that all would sin.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead,...
PD Many died physically on account of Adam is what I see. You?
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
SD All have sinned on account of Adam unto condemnation. The free gift is to take away many offenses by one Sacrifice. Does this say any more than that, Larry?
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
PD This is telling us that physical death reigned on account of Adam. Then it tells us that we can reign in our physical life through Christ. Are you seeing anything else?
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
SD This goes back to the "all have sinned" idea and the all are made righteous idea. Paul is doing parallel contrasts -- one regarding physical death and one regarding sin.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
This is also the second track (SD) regarding sin and righteousness.
What I see is Paul speaking about physical death (PD) consequences of Adam and spiritual death (SD) consequences (and, of course, the physical life and spiritual life consequences of believing!). Are you with me? Where do you disagree? I'm taking the time to do this hoping that we can agree on something, OK?
skypair
Last edited by a moderator:
It's hard to avoid "through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men" and "through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners." The words say what they do. And the contrast says what it does. the contrast is not between physical death and spiritual death but between how we become sinners and how we become righteous.
Not as you seemed to describe it in talking about your MIL.Pastor Larry said:
You got this thing about "permissive will" whereby God lets people and Satan do what they want but you never say they are sovereign over their own acts. What is that all about?? 'Cause I freely admit that God controls the outcomes and the ultimate end but He's NOT doin' the play-by-play, blow-by-blow decisions and choices, Larry. You're basically in a "mind trap" where you can't admit human sovereignty even when you see it! Did God pick your socks out for you this morning??
I don't see it, Larry. I see that God tries to intervene in everyone's life to save them but He can't because they don't ask. That's how my miracles work too.
Adrian Rogers had a good sermon on binding Satan and loosing God's will through prayer. Sometimes something is God's will if we will just acknowledge Him in it and have faith. What was the thing Jesus used to say -- "thy faith has healed thee?" We can be sure that if something is in His will, we can pray confidently for it and God will grant it, 1John 5:14-15. Salvation is His will for us and if we pray for it according to that will ("in Christ"), we will receive it.
And it is true that God doesn't always do as we ask
Ultimately, "that's a truism," as we used to say in school. :laugh:
No, I deny that everything is His will, Larry. Else He would be, to me, a Greek god where all I could hope for is for "the fates to be kind to me."
Well, I know He foreknew it all and I don't like to be morbid or judgmental but was there anything that could have been done in either situation to avert the outcome that happened? I mean, in my heart case, God showed me that smoking was part of the blame and that, young as I was (28), exercise would help so I started jogging before it was in fashion. That is the kind of "miracles" I have experienced -- miracles of revelation, of changing myself and letting God do what He does best (answer).
Oh, I got a topper for that. One Mother's Day (when our church awarded the oldest mother, youngest mother, etc.), the youngest was a black, unwed teen and the preacher was at first flabbergasted and then said, "Why you're too young to be a mother." I was so embarrassed for that girl. I mean, the fact that she stood up showed that she didn't expect condemnation or that she had done anything wrong, right? I sure hope that girl got saved.
raying: I see. Or ignorance. And I surmise my MIL wasn't as mature of a Christian as she might have been when she was older. I talked to her about it and agreed that that "comfort" is well-intended but sees only God's foreordination of all events and NOT what God would have like to see happen.
Can we discuss that? Cause I don't think I misread it.
Exactly! But healing is often by INTERACTION -- praying and God "changing His mind," His natural and judicial laws.
And well you shouldn't. But Larry -- look at the issues I gave to David. Are we really at the mercy of fate a Greek god? Or do we get to interact with the God of heaven? Are we so many toys like we used to play with that -- inanimate objects incapable of "moving through the sand" without God manipulating us? Is God only about His own glory and pleasure? who gets glory and pleasure out of damnation as well as our salvation? Put some Sonlight in between them for me, will you?
skypair
Last edited by a moderator:
skypair said:
Oh, really ? Can you show me where John Calvin posted in this thread ? I missed it.
skypair said:
The problem is that your idea of unity is according to what you think the correct doctrine is, and in the process you have been insinuating against the integrity of someone who is already deceased and unable to defend himself and whom many of the posters on this board respect, and in that process, by association, you also impugn upon the integrity of the doctrines of many here.
As if your doctrine is the only correct one worth considering, and anyone who does not hold to what you hold to is dividing the unity of Christians.
And what is the God of Skypairism like ?
skypair said:
No. Unless you refrain from referring to the God that Calvinists believe in as the God of Calvinism as if He were a false God and they are worshippers of false gods and therefore unsaved contrary to your presumption.
Either we are all of the same God, or we are not.
There was a time when I also said god of Arminianism but I realized that was not exactly charitable and desisted accordingly.
yeah. right.skypair said:
skypair said:
No. It doesn't.
Because I didn't define His glory for Him the way you do. Rippon has quoted more than enough Scriptures in His post to put you in your proper place before God.
If those weren't enough, here's some more:
Isaiah 42:8 -I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Isa 43:7 - Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
Isa 48:11 - For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
pinoybaptist said:
In a word, incompetent. According to skypair, God tries to save everyone but fails. On the other hand, according to skypair, a God who cannot do something is not God. Ergo, according to skypair, God is not God, so I'm not sure there is a God of Skypairism.
Then you need to study some more about what I have said about what I believe.
It is about what the Scriptures say.
How do you control the end if you don’t control the means? What if God controls the outcome the Bill gets saved, but then doesn’t control the play by play so that Bill hears the gospel and responds in faith? That is totally illogical, not to mention unbiblical (which is more important).
Ultimately , yes. He did. But think about this: why can’t I see human sovereignty? Perhaps because it doesn’t exist. You illustrate so well what I said last night … that most people’s main objection to this teaching about God is not the Bible, but their desire to maintain human autonomy.
So God’s purposes can fail and people can thwart God’s plan? How then do you explain Daniel 4:35 or Isa 45:9 for starters? Why not do this: sit down with Isa 40-48 or so and spend some time meditating on what God says about himself. Try to divorce yourself from your predetermined conclusions. Don’t try to explain away what it says.
So it appears that Adrian Rogers agrees with what I have already said.
What is it then?
No, there was nothing. But think about what you just said: He foreknew and did nothing to stop it. Does that mean he is not loving? That would be the outcome unless he was using it for his own purpose.
Could be with respect to a particular topic.
1 Peter 1:19-20 and Rom 11:2 clearly shows that foreknowledge is not simply knowing something ahead of time. It is choosing.
Healing is often by interaction, but why do you think God changed his mind? What if it was God’s will for you to pray and then heal you in response to that prayer?
I haven’t read that exchange. Too little time and interest.
[quoet] Are we really at the mercy of fate a Greek god?[/quote]No
Yes
No
Only? Primarily is a better word, but I would not object to “only” provided that we understand that God’s get glory through our salvation (eph 1).
He gets glory from both since it highlights and magnifies his grace and holiness.
Not sure what that means.
Well, I take offense at your first comment because I usually use the term "Calvinist," not "Calvin. But secondly, "impugning the doctrines," I am asking for analysis. I am asking all to find common ground regarding (since Larry brought it up) who God is -- first precept of salvation. If you don't like my comparison, pls show me the fallacy in it.pinoybaptist said:
Oh, stop! Either our view of God divides us or it doesn't. I say it does because Calvin somehow got a "Greek model." Your response should be whether my evaluation holds up to theological, scriptural analysis.
The BIBLE description. Check it out.
The "God of Calvinism" says that I do see a difference from the God I know. False God? No, incomplete. You got saved by Him but you didn't, at that point, need to know everything about Him. Like Paul said, the people of God (especially the Galations) could be led away from the true God by those who "crept in unawares."
Yes, but do we all know who He is?
But you have every right to see if someone has led the "flock" astray, do you not?
[/quote] See, these are true regarding idols. But read John 17:20 sometime. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: Does that sound to you like God is only seeking His own glory??
skypair
Well, that oughta give you the "high ground" even if you don't cite scripture! :laugh: Are you casting aspersions on the source of my theology??Pastor Larry said:
You allow Pharoah to either agree with You or force him to release your people. Either way, your "people" are let loose. But you seem to see man as having with no options, don't you? If man decides anything, he is controlling God. Does the Bible really tell you that??
Maintain it as Bible truth. Did you "sovereignly" decide which socks to wear this morning? If not, what was your "Guidance?" your "Imperative?"
Did Pharoah "stay God's hand?" Didn't he let God's people go? Did Pharoah try to resist, Larry? Was that by God's wovereignty or by his own??
Tells me He foreknew everything and accomodated His plan to accept a) Israel accepting Messiah or b) Israel not accepting Messiah. But you can't see it both ways, can you?
Well, depending how you define "grace and mercy." On first blush, it appeared your "grace and mercy" was just a "warm fuzzy." At best, it was a nebulous concept to me -- no temporal results.
I'll have to get back with you tomorrow. Be good.
skypair
I think I have cited Scripture an awful lot here.
No, I don't konw what the source of your theology is. I am questioing your theology itself.
God did the latter.
I don't recognize that view.
I was wearing stone pants so I wore stone socks. That was not an accident. I chose, but it was in the plan of God.
By God's sovereignty. God hardened Pharoah's heart so that God could demonstrate his power.
But that's not actually what it says is it? It says far more than that he accommodated himself to them.
skypair said:
okay.
since you have put yourself as theologically smarter and more Spiritually enlightened than the "Calvinists" whom you profess to love as much as your fellow Arminians, then reconcile that with the Isaiah scriptures, if you will.
either the God of the Bible is one God who never changes, or there are two different Gods in the Bible. One for the New Testament, the other for the Old Testament.
Either He shares His glory with "another" be it a stone or wooden statue who neither talks, thinks, or walks, and therefore cannot sin against Him, or He shares His glory with a rebellious creature whose only claim to salvation can ever be the blood of the very God he has rebelled against.
Show us that this glory Christ gave His disciples, and which you claim for yourself, as well, is the same glory that God will not share with "idols".