|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 4:59:22 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
How does this answer my question? Your pov is that man is unable to seek God, yet God created mankind to seek Him? You haven't explained why God would purpose for man to seek Him yet not give him the ability to do so. Can you answer that from your RT pov? Did God create man to obey Him?... did He not command him to obey?
How does this answer the question? You are dodging the question. No, it is not a "dodge" it is an attempt to answer your question. We're all gonna get carpal tunnel syndrome from answering the same questions from you over and over. It would save everyone a lot of typing strokes if you could learn the difference between not answering and you just not liking the answer.
I have repeatedly said man can seek God; but, cannot do so with his whole heart as God commands him to do. The same applies to man obeying God. Man can obey some of the commands of God; but, man cannot obey the command to believe and love God with his whole heart.
quote:
You misunderstand what man is able to do and unable to do. Man cannot save himself, but man can seek God and believe the gospel. I know I'm repeating myself because I am constantly answering the same questions from you. Man is capable of only a noetic understanding of the Gospel and that is not salvific faith.
quote:
quote:
The same applies to "seeking" God as He commands to be sought - with our whole hearts(Jer 29:13; Psalm 119:2). How do you explain 1 Kings 11:4. We've been through this before. I haven't changed my mind that the Bible teaches in Ecclesiastes that Solomon repented of his sins.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Please show me one verse that differentiates between "intellectual" belief with "spiritual" belief. That is just made up nonsense from the RT pov to confuse the issue.
Nope, the only "nonsense" is refusing to recogize the scriptual passages which show some "believers" who are not saved such as those Christ told "depart from me I never knew you". In the first place, those He said that to were NOT described as believers. He even noted that they didn't believe in Him. Pay attention. Second, no where in Scripture do we find quote marks around the word believers. That is only a reformed tactic to minimize the meaning of the word, which IS nonsense. Oh, if only you would pay attention. They obviously THOUGHT they were believers - read the passage.
quote:
quote:
quote:
He wasn't speaking to any believers when He said that. You are quite mistaken to think that He was.
They certainly “thought” they were believers which is precisely the point.
Where do you get that they "thought" (there's that reformed tactic again!) they were believers? I'm totally convinced that you don't read the passage you "expound" upon. If you can read that passage and still not recognize that these about whom Jesus is speaking THOUGHT they were believers, then there's nothing anyone could say to help you understand.
quote:
quote:
Just because there is intellectual affirmation of the Gospel does not mean that someone is saved which Christ is quick to point out. So, you have passages that speak of intellectual affirmation?
Obviously, since I just made mention of one. Although, it is possible this was more a delusional affirmation similar to that of Simon Magus'.
quote:
quote:
Was the murder of Christ a sin or not? And was not this murder ordained by God? Or are you again going to deny the clear words of Scripture where God says “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,..” What was ordained was the sacrifice that Jesus was to make on behalf of the world. You seem to miss that important bit of information. Christ OFFERED Himself as a sacrifice. The evildoers did MURDER. It is the same event and that event was determined and ordained by God.
quote:
quote:
You are right about one thing, though, the evildoers freely committed their sins. Scripture is clear that both exist – God’s determining events and man’s liberty of choosing. As usual, it seems you prefer the humanist approach where man in totally in control of just about everything. Of course I'm right about that. God ordained the sacrifice, and used man's free will to accomplish it. You admit "both" exist, yet you tell me I can't "have it both ways".
That's correct you cannot have it both ways; but, God can and does.
quote:
quote:
Imagine that, you, the king of dodge, lecturing others on dodging…seems we have a pattern here.
Again, dodging my question to you.  Again, kelman, WHO determined and ordained your sins? Can you answer this? Will you answer this? Please quit dodging the question.
LOL....you must so enjoy repeatedly typing the same words since all you had to do is NOT cut-up my response to get my answer AGAIN. Ah, but then you wouldn't be able to continue this little sham of accusing people of not answering your questions.
quote:
quote:
I think I asked you first whether God was the first cause of Judas' sin since God declares He determined the murder of Christ....well, no matter.
No, God was NOT the first cause of Judas' sin. Judas was the first cause, from his own free will and freedom of choice. Hmm, let's see if your answer agrees with Scripture. God determined the Crucifixion from before the foundation of the world. He prophesied concerning Judas in the OT.....but, Judas was the primary cause...sure, FG, sure.
quote:
quote:
In any event, you simply fail to understand that God is the primary cause of ALL things; and, as it relates to sin, man is the secondary cause.
You fail to recognize the fact that God created creatures, both angelic and mankind, with freedom to act and choose. That means that what is chosen by man or angel was caused by man or angel. I suspect that is too difficult for you to grasp.
You asked in what posts you personally attack...try this one, although, just about any of your posts would do.
quote:
quote:
quote:
So, you see, I’ve answered your question, although, I doubt you’ll recognize that fact. No, you've dodged my question. But I'll ask it again. Who determined and ordained your sins, kelman. You, or God. Hint: Gave you more than a "hint". Why don't you take it? I don't have to use your words to explain a theological point. I explain it according to the way Scripture presents it.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 5:26:39 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Justification, forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life are based on our faith. You mention the "faith of Jesus"... Yes, I sure did mention it since the Bible is quite clear that it is the faith of Jesus Christ that justifies which means in canNOT be your faith.
Please notice those 3 little dots after "Jesus". Why didn't you deal with the verses I presented that link our forgiveness, justification, salvation and eternal life on what we believe? Can you be more honest here?
LOL...imagine you lecturing on honesty!
I did deal with them. I said none of the verses you supplied indicate that it is your faith which saves. But, contrary to you, I was able to supply verses which say that it is the faith of Jesus Christ which justifies.
How can you claim "honesty" when you ignored Acts 16:31? You didn't deal with it. Paul told the jailer to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and he would be saved. Cause and effect. Where is your "faith OF Christ" in this verse on HOW to be saved?
Oh, I do love the sound of that - "my" faith of Christ. Without that how lost I'd be - how lost we'd all be.
Back to you. Again, I DID deal with it; but, apparently again not to your liking. Specifically, Paul told the jailer that he must believe. You act as if I disagree with that - I don't. Of course, the jailer must believe just as we all must believe. That does not negate the fact that it is the faith of Christ which saves and justifies us. If the jailer was justifed by his own faith then the jailer justified himself. No, God is clear it is the faith of Jesus Christ which justifies.
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 5:43:36 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Are you ignorant of the Terms of Service, Carico? Specifically #6, How 'bout asking the same of yourself, FG. You know the one under #6 which says: "You will not engage in name-calling or personal attacks in the course of discussion or debate."
Please show me what post in which I have used "name calling". Carico's post was clear in suggesting that I wasn't saved. How does that NOT violate the TOS?
Well, I guess half a loaf's better than none...at least you admit to personal attacks...I guess you actually do read some of your posts.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 7:28:18 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shemaromans
quote:
FG:
Once again, the reformed answer questions by simply quoting verses, thinking that answers the question, or maybe trumps the other poster's verses.
Since we base our opinions on the Bible, why wouldn't we counter with scripture? Why wouldn't we look to the inerrant, infallible word of God as our defense?
You shouldn't, because simply providing a quote from a passage without comment does not answer specific questions.
quote:
May I ask you a question, kindly intended? How much time do you spend reading the posted verses and thinking about their meanings in relation to the topic being discussed?
I do read the verses. Yet, without comment from the poster as to what they think it means, what's the point? Only when a verse is explained can one understand what another thinks the verse means.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 7:42:12 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shemaromans
FG,
I must be very tired or absentminded at the moment.  Looked and looked but can't find a previous post of yours. 
Would you refer me to the scripture that you're talking about and repeat your question, please, about the solution/taunting?
Thank you!
My pleasure, shemaromans. The verse is John 8:24. Jesus is speaking to a group of as yet unbelievers. He warns them of where they are headed with "you shall die in your sins", and then He gives them the solution with "unless you believe that I am He".
For the life of me, in light of reformed theology, I cannot explain WHY Jesus both warned AND gave the solution.
I know that reformed theology classes humanity into 1 of 2 groups; either elect or non-elect.
The question: WHY would Jesus warn the non-elect, knowing from reformed theology that the non-elect were "prepared for destruction" per Rom 9:22?
Not only that, He even gave them the solution to the danger they were headed for. WHY would He tell the non-elect "unless you believe that I am He", knowing from reformed theology, that the non-elect weren't chosen to believe?
Also, another question: WHY would Jesus warn the "pre-faith" elect, since they were "prepared for glory" per Rom 9:23?
So, you see why I ask these questions. In trying to understand the reformed pov, this verse brings up these questions. So far, none of the reformed has provided any semblance of an answer. balbas only got quite defensive to my claim that he/she didn't answer the questions.
KJB finally seemed to agree that Jesus did warn them, and his only response was that Jesus had some sort of "secret motives".
Since ALL Scripture is profitable, why would Jesus have any "secret motives" when warning either non-elect, or "pre-faith" elect? Neither makes sense, from the reformed pov.
Do you have any thoughts on WHY Jesus warned this group? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 7:48:54 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
There is no reason for His choices, none at all. Ah, only FG demands that God tell him all His mysteries even when God declares that He will not:
Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Never think that just because God has not privileged you with the answers to all His mysteries that He doesn’t have reasons for everything He does.
Yet, there is no mystery in John 8:24. It is very clear. Jesus addressed a crowd of unbelievers and warned them of the danger that they "shall die in your sins". Is that a mystery? No. He then gave them the solution to their danger, "unless you believe that I am He". Is that a mystery? No.
The question demanded by the pov of reformed theology, is WHY would Jesus warn those "prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:22), or, if they were the "pre-faith" elect, WHY warn them, since they were "prepared for glory" (Rom 9:23)?
Can you give me an answer? KJB thought that Jesus had "secret motives". What say you?
btw, the FW pov has an answer that perfectly fits what the text says.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 7:54:12 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Are you ignorant of the Terms of Service, Carico? Specifically #6, How 'bout asking the same of yourself, FG. You know the one under #6 which says: "You will not engage in name-calling or personal attacks in the course of discussion or debate."
Please show me what post in which I have used "name calling". Carico's post was clear in suggesting that I wasn't saved. How does that NOT violate the TOS?
Well, I guess half a loaf's better than none...at least you admit to personal attacks...I guess you actually do read some of your posts.
Your comment here is strange indeed. First, you accuse me of using personal attacks. When I ask you to provide proof, and say what Carico did, you say that I "admit to personal attacks". Are you charging me with making personal attacks or not? Carico attacked my salvation quite clearly. Can you provide any proof that I have attacked anyone? No, you can't.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 9:41:32 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3467
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
kelman,
quote:
I'm so far behind on this thread; but, I'll try to take a look, thanks. I don't see anything biblical about "invitations/altar calls". I have to wonder how he knows God has regenerated those who come forward.
It reminds me of a pastor I heard about. He called people to an invitation to come forward to profess/confess their faith in Jesus Christ.
He made the point that any and all persons in the congregation that were unbelievers should confess that they are sinners that have offended God and that their only hope was turning to and trusting in Jesus Christ as their only hope and their Savior.
He added the following points that anyone having such a change and making such a declaration were being moved by God to do so and those not moved by God would not do so. I think it sounded like real truth. When people came forward or no person did......praise was to God.
It reminds me of this;
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking under the power and influence of the [Holy] Spirit of God can [ever] say, Jesus be cursed! And no one can [really] say, Jesus is [my] Lord, except by and under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit. (Amplified)
By the way.....I dont think you are behind on the thread at all. It seems you are answering things that you have already answered over and over and over again. I think some people are behind in understanding answers.
quote:
No, it is not a "dodge" it is an attempt to answer your question. We're all gonna get carpal tunnel syndrome from answering the same questions from you over and over. It would save everyone a lot of typing strokes if you could learn the difference between not answering and you just not liking the answer.
LOL........Amen to that!
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 10:11:33 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3467
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
FreeGrace,
quote:
Can you give me an answer? KJB thought that Jesus had "secret motives". What say you?
quote:
KJB finally seemed to agree that Jesus did warn them, and his only response was that Jesus had some sort of "secret motives".
Actually, that is pure distortion and your outward actions of distorting what people say and mean reveal your secret motives.
Here is a portion of my post 32799.
I have already told you He was telling them truth. That is exactly what He was doing because that is exactly what we can read He was doing.
As to any of His secret motives......they are secret and not revealed in that text.
You can imagine.....you can feel.....you can dream.....you can wonder.....you can believe that you were right there in His mind, but the fact remains you were not.
You can give millions or even trillions of your thoughts on WHY you think He was doing what He did.
You can suppose He was taunting, not taunting, warning.....or whatever!
The text DOES not provide answers proving or disproving your free-will theory.
The text does not claim or provide answers on whether people are able or are unable to believe.
Anything you read into the text is only speculation and my advice is where text is not perfectly clear on a specific issue (like their ability or inability to believe)........find CLEARER text!
That is why I advised going further down in John 8 and reading the text clearly saying they were unable to hear because they did not belong to God. It also clarifies which people have the ability to hear.
47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
Even on that you sat there and argued and argued. So what is the point?
This is the text you use to try and prove human ability as well as describe what motives Jesus had;
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
My earlier post (32799) was to show you that the text does not reveal anything about human ability or disability and it certainly does not reveal any motives Jesus had.
It does not mean He was trying to save them or condemn them. He simply spoke the truth.
It is really amazing how you enjoy distorting the posts of others to imply what they do not imply.
I can imagine that His motives were to condemn them while you can imagine His motives were to save them.
The text; 24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." is NOT clear on either.
The text is VOID on proof that people have a self made ability to believe in Him or not.
Understand my answer.
You reading into the text is nothing more than fanciful imagination.
I think most people here on the forum understand the answer I have given and how you distort things.
Do you wish to find out more on human ability?
Dont use; 24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." because it does not say!
Go further down to CLEARER text like this;
43"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
45"But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
46"Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
47"He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."
That is clearer text and Jesus certainly does not rant, rave, preach, or proclaim and praise their free-will.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 11:19:46 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 4132
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Diolectic
quote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Because God is God - there is no other reason That is no reason for worship, unless He is worthy. Excuse me? You're saying that because God is God is no reason to worship Him?...surely, you can't mean that. God thinks He's worthy of prayerful worship just because He is God. He is righteous like none other just because He is God. What I said is true.
You just gave the reasons why God is worthy.
God must have reasons to be worthy, and you gave them.
I am saddened by your post diolectic... 
You appear to want your own manmade god.
I AM THAT I AM ...God is what He is
Are you comfortable with your assessment ?
"God must have REASONS to be worthy"
Holy smokes ! I re-read that 10 times ! Shocking !
God must be who you want Him to be ?
God must act how you want Him to act ?
God must prove Himself worthy ?
You also wrote another peculiar thought, which
has haunted me as well with it's blatant fist
shaking at God, that God must meet your approval
and fit the definition you have established.
From you : " However,
God is not holy and rightous just because He is God.
God must act and be holy and rightous "
God DEFINES righteousness and holiness.
Anything and everything God does is such.
You want God to exhibit your unique individual
preferences regarding righteousness/holiness,
and you will test and approve them, finally
compare them to see if they are in order.
God must be like you...that's it, right ?
God must act how you think He should act ?
Why are you attempting to change God ?
WHATEVER God does IS perfect and holy.
For some reason, you struggle with this...
_____________________________
The purpose of being educated is to defend ourselves against the seductions of eloquence.......Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 11:29:23 AM
|
|
|
balbas
Posts: 257
Joined: 8/3/2008
Status: offline
|
KingJamesBond,
quote:
I wanted to make some comments on prayer.
I suppose when I think about prayer I think about what is always going on in the back of my mind.
The prayer of a righteous man avails much........and the righteous shall live by faith. If I have faith I am considered as righteous.
When I ask for God to work in my co-worker for example.....I always remind myself, "Yet not my will....but Yours be done".
That is because my will may not be what God wills. I dont see all the secret things God is working.
I suppose it is similar to a prayer like........"If you wish for this war to end, please end it.....yet if what I am asking is in any way contrary to Your will and the war must continue......let not my will but Yours be done.
I see that as having faith not in my will and how I think God should be working and operating in the world or my co-worker....but having faith in Him and His will.
I have faith that all things are happening for some reason and not even the sparrow falls to the ground apart from His will.
For you have been given the privilege for the Messiah's sake not only to believe in him but also to suffer for him.
I am convinced that the prayer of the righteous avails simply because those that have faith in God know He has everything under control. So if a man prays in faith.....how can he go wrong?
People that pray not in true faith have more trust in themselves and what they think they should be getting God to do according to their own wills.
Does that make sense?
Our minds and hearts should have the desire to be in line with His will because we have total and complete faith in Him and the fact that He knows exactly what He is doing and nothing is out of His control.
Why would someone ask for something contrary to the will of God just to change His mind to fit our own will?
That is not faith in God.....that is faith in our wills as if we assume we know what is best for God to do.
Those with faith in other people or things will ask for things according to their own will and how God can change things.
Those with faith in God will ask in accordance with His will.
Just checking in this Lord's day to tell you that there is much to be reminded of and be blessed with in your post.
I praise the Lord for you and our friends as your words are seasoned with salt. This Lord's day is shaping out to be a very blessed one.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 12:51:48 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1742
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
So, I agree, that God does not cause man to sin – He does not force man to sin – man does this of His own volition. Man is responsible for his own sin and is without excuse for his sin. But it is God who decreed that there would be sin. Truly a mystery.
You are being quite inconsistent here. You admit volition on the part of man. That is free will. Definition: act of the willing, exercise of the will. Yet, you RT pov denies free will. You are confused.
No, I am not confused, but you sure seem to be. My position does not deny that man is free to choose that which he desires. My position has always been that. Your lack of seeing this is evidence of not taking time to understand what I am saying.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Actually, you have to "assume" that God caused him to believe, when there is no suggestion or hint of it.
There is no suggestion or hint in Acts explaining how Cornelius came to believe one way or the other. Any conclusions about the cause of Cornelius believing must be found in other passages, such as 1 Cor 1-3, 2 Cor 4, Romans 1 . . .
The textof Acts 10 is very clear that when the angel presented divine Truth to Cornelius, he immediately acted upon it, demonstrating quite clearly that he believed the angel.
The purpose of Acts 10 is obviously not to show the cause of Cornelius’ actions and the cause of his belief. To use Cornelius to prove cause of belief and it not being found in the text is presumption gone to seed.
quote:
quote:
quote:
From Romans 1, it is FACT that God has made evident His existence so that it is clearly seen, leaving man without excuse for not seeking Him. One has to presuppose that freedom of choice doesn't exist to NOT see man's freedom of choice in the passage.
I agree that freedom of choice is in the passage. I have never disagreed with that. The point that I disagree with you is that some DO choose to honor God based upon that which God made evident of Himself in creation. That concept is found nowhere in Romans 1.
The principle of "freedom of choice" is there, as you admit, which renders you inconsistent. The "concept" of that freedom of choice is seen in the life of Cornelius, which you reject.
I don’t reject that Cornelius has the freedom to choose that which he desires. What I reject is that the cause of Cornelius’ choosing is found in the text of Acts 10.
quote:
quote:
The topic is much greater than the existence of God as Creator, but is why Paul is eager to preach the gospel: it the power of God for salvation for all who believe and it is this way because it has been revealed from faith to faith. The need for the gospel has been revealed from heaven – God’s wrath, which men deserve for they have not honored God in a way that is appropriate to the revelation of His character and attributes found in creation.
I don't argue with any of this. Yet, you deny the specific points I've pointed out that come directly from the passage.
I deny your “specific points” that you have imposed upon the passage. I say that you have imposed them upon the passage because they cannot be found “directly from the passage.”
quote:
quote:
Paul is not saying that they didn’t honor the existence of God, but that they did not honor Him as who He is – God. All men have lesser views of God than He is in reality; the natural man belittles God. Fallen man may acknowledge the existence of God, but he does not honor God in a way that is due His glorious and holy name.
The error is in thinking that Paul was describing everyone in humanity. God created man to seek Him, and therefore, man HAS that ability to do so, as Cornelius clearly demonstated.
Your Cornelius mantra has nothing to do with my statement. Paul did not say in Romans 1 that those who deserve God’s wrath did not honor the existence of God, but that they did not honor God according to the attributes that creation shows Him to be.
The text concerning Cornelius does not show the cause of His believing, therefore cannot be used as proof of cause.
quote:
quote:
The knowledge of God’s glorious attributes seen in creation (v20) should lead all men to honor Him (give glory to Him due His glorious being) in a way that is agreeable to His holy character. It should lead all men to give thanks to Him.
And... Cornelius did exactly that.
Again, the cause of whatever Cornelius did is not given in the text of Acts 10. To try to prove a cause of believing where no cause is given is showing nothing more than presumption.
quote:
quote:
When you say,
quote:
Those terms describe what one would do when seeking God. First, they must believe that He exists (Heb 11:6b) and then "being thankful" indicates seeking Him.
introduces a thought that is foreign to the passage. Being thankful does not indicate seeking God, but indicates the acknowledgment that God is the provider of all that we are and all that we are in need of.
Again I disagree. What else can "being thankful" refer to, except that one is thankful that God revealed Himself as Creator, so that because know that I know He exists, I can seek Him. How could "being thankful" NOT lead to seeking the Creator of the universe?
What do you think "being thankful" means?
I think it means being appreciative and grateful for who God is as He has revealed Himself in creation. Romans 1 does not speak of seeking God, but not being grateful for who God is.
quote:
quote:
Giving thanks is the appropriate response to the glorious revelation of God made evident in creation.
Sure it does. Now, give me an example of how that is demonstrated in one's life. I've already given you the example of Cornelius. Now you tell me how that is demonstrated, if not by the life of Cornelius.
It is not demonstrated in anyone’s life, for none have honored Him or given thanks based upon the revelation of God seen in creation.
Cornelius cannot be used as an example because the facts we have of him do not address one way or the other of the cause of his believing.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Since you continue to think that everyone only dishonors and rebells against God, in spite of clear Scriptural evidence to the contrary, there seems no further point in this discussion.
You have brought no "clear" Scriptural evidence what so ever. Quite the opposite is true. A clear reading of Romans shows you are in error and the backing of the scholars you brought into the argument also show you to be in error.
Paul's direct words do not show me to be in error. I can't help your scholars or you. We are at an impasse. We disagree with each other on how to understand what Paul was saying. Too bad.
Concerning your scholars – it was you that brought them into the argument, not me. But the fact is, your scholars disagree with you and prove you to be in error. You pit yourself up against the translators and scholars who have brought us the major translations and paraphrases in use today. Yes, it is too bad.
The reason there is no further point in this discussion with you is your refusal to recognize what Cornelius demonstrates.
I think it is more accurate to say that it is because your refusal to see what Scripture clearly demonstrates. And you do that even after being confronted with Greek scholars that show your interpretation in error. Cornelius has nothing to do with the interpretation of Romans 1, but word usage, word definitions and sentence structure have everything to do with how it should be interpreted. Your scholars make it clear that you are in error.
I do not refuse to recognize what Cornelius demonstrates – God’s sovereign plan to include Gentiles into His kingdom. What I deny is that the cause of Cornelius’ believing is found in Acts 10 – it just is not there.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 1:28:18 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1742
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
The pinnacle of God’s law is to love Him with every fiber of your being. This is God’s ultimate command. All other commands are wrapped up in this one command to love God. Man does not do this. Why not? Is he able to do so? Yes, he is able in the sense that he has a will, but he chooses not to love God with all his heart, mind soul and strength.
I don't recall any response on your part of 1 Kings 11:4. Do you have one? What does "wholly devoted" mean to you? David was, and Solomon was not. Explain that.
For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. (1Ki 11:4 ESV)
Did David love God with all His heart, mind, soul and strength? Ask Uriah the Hittite.
quote:
quote:
So, man is unwilling to fulfill God’s purpose for man which is to love God with all of his being.
Your statement here contradicts RT and supports FW.
It in no way contradicts Reformed Theology. You show your lack of understanding here.
quote:
The issue of being willing or unwilling is one of choice.
No, it is not a matter of choice, but rather a matter of the current disposition of the heart and mind which determines the will. One who is unwilling will not choose that which he is unwilling to do, unlesse he is willing to do it. In other words, a person only chooses that which he is willing to choose.
quote:
quote:
But some men try to love God in this way and find themselves unable (which you have admitted about yourself). Is their inability based upon not having the faculties needed to obey? No, their inability is based upon their unwillingness to do so. What hinders man from loving God with all heart, mind, soul and strength is choosing things such as envy, strife, bitterness, revenge, pride, self exaltation, selfishness, etc. Man’s inability is directly connected to his unwillingness.
Please explain "wholly devoted" from 1 Kings 11:4.
1 Kings 11:4 does not negate that fact that King David committed adultry
and had someone murdered, thus graphically showing that he did not love God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength. David was unwilling to honor God by loving Him with all his heart, soul, mind and strength by committing adultry and murder. He is yet another example of man's inability to live up to God's perfect standard. He is also a man through whom God demonstrated His mercy and grace.
quote:
quote:
God makes man willing, by the power of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man.
Yes, I know all about your theology of force.
I would say you belittle the power of God and uplift and exalt the supposed power of man.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
At least you acknowledge that she faced a choice. Why can't you face the fact that when God makes evident Himself to mankind, man is also faced with the choice, to either believe that evidence that has been clearly seen, or to reject that evidence?
I have always acknowledged that every person on the face of the earth is faced with a choice. That should not be anything new to you.
And you claim you have been clear. Well, guess what! It's news to me.
I guess you are reading last years news for I have been very clear on this for quite some time (at least a year).
The foundational understanding of FW is choice. So, why are you so argumentative, if you agree with choice?
You tell me. Why are you so argumentative?
quote:
quote:
quote:
Yes, ALL sin. ALL are under sin. Yet, God created mankind TO seek Him and because He has revealed Himself to mankind so they would seek Himn, no one has any excuse for not doing so.
All are without excuse for sin. Romans 1 does not address seeking God. It is your conclusion that is not based upon what the Bible states.
By simply comparing Scripture with Scripture (Acts 17:27) we know that mankind was created to seek God. Since God has made Himself evident to man, the only obvious purpose is so that man can know He exists and is presented with the choice to either seek Him or reject/ignore Him. And you have admitted that man IS faced with that choice. So, you have agreed with the FW pov, and contradicted the RT pov with your agreement.
Not so at all. You have merely shown your lack of understanding of what I have stated.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 2:18:25 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
quote:
Can you give me an answer? KJB thought that Jesus had "secret motives". What say you?
quote:
KJB finally seemed to agree that Jesus did warn them, and his only response was that Jesus had some sort of "secret motives".
Actually, that is pure distortion and your outward actions of distorting what people say and mean reveal your secret motives.
Can you show me what is "pure distortion" please? I disagree that I've distorted anything of what you posted.
btw, when I tell you that you didn't answer my questions, it is because you didn't, not that I disagree with your answer. When I disagree I tell you I disagree. I've been clear.
quote:
Here is a portion of my post 32799.
I have already told you He was telling them truth. That is exactly what He was doing because that is exactly what we can read He was doing.
As to any of His secret motives......they are secret and not revealed in that text.
How is it "pure distortion" to say our answer is that Jesus had secret motives. Those are your own words. If you didn't mean He had secret motives, why did you use these words?
quote:
You can imagine.....you can feel.....you can dream.....you can wonder.....you can believe that you were right there in His mind, but the fact remains you were not.
You can give millions or even trillions of your thoughts on WHY you think He was doing what He did.
What do these questions have to do with my question? Jesus' words and warning IS clear. The question is WHY He warned either the non-elect, since your own theology claims the non-elect were "fitted to destruction" per Rom 9:22, or WHY He warned the elect, since your own theology claims the elect were "prepared beforehand for glory".
John 8:24 demands that these questions be asked, in light of reformed theology. Surely the reformed must have a reasonable answer as to WHY He did.
quote:
You can suppose He was taunting, not taunting, warning.....or whatever!
I'm not supposing anything. I'm asking you to explain WHY He warned either the non-elect or the "pre-faith" elect. Can you?
quote:
The text DOES not provide answers proving or disproving your free-will theory.
That's why I'm asking you to explain WHY He did, in the light of your theology. Can you?
quote:
The text does not claim or provide answers on whether people are able or are unable to believe.
Then, WHY did He warn them, whether they were non-elect or elect? CAn you?
quote:
Anything you read into the text is only speculation and my advice is where text is not perfectly clear on a specific issue (like their ability or inability to believe)........find CLEARER text!
I'm not asking you to read into the text. I'm asking you to explain WHY He warned them; elect or non-elect. btw, the text is clear enough that you do not need a more clear text.
quote:
That is why I advised going further down in John 8 and reading the text clearly saying they were unable to hear because they did not belong to God. It also clarifies which people have the ability to hear.
The rest of John 8 doesn't address the WHY question, now, does it. Can you?
quote:
This is the text you use to try and prove human ability as well as describe what motives Jesus had;
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
My earlier post (32799) was to show you that the text does not reveal anything about human ability or disability and it certainly does not reveal any motives Jesus had.
How does reformed theology explain WHY Jesus said what He said? Certlainly there must be someone in the C camp who has an explanation for WHY Jesus warned either group.
quote:
It does not mean He was trying to save them or condemn them. He simply spoke the truth.
He WARNED them, KJB. It cannot be denied, even you do deny it.
quote:
It is really amazing how you enjoy distorting the posts of others to imply what they do not imply.
OK, what do your posts imply, other than that you are unable to answer the WHY question?
quote:
I can imagine that His motives were to condemn them while you can imagine His motives were to save them.
But, WHY bother, since from Rom 9:22, they were ALREADY condemned? And that STILL doesn't answer the WHY as to giving them the solution. Please explain how it makes any sense to tell the non-elect "unless you believe in Me"? Can you?
quote:
The text; 24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." is NOT clear on either.
I think the FACT that it is not clear to you is significant. I've already given the answer to the WHY questions from the FW pov, and the answer fits perfectly with the text.
WHY can't the reformed pov provide an answer that fits the text?
quote:
The text is VOID on proof that people have a self made ability to believe in Him or not.
I would conclude that reformed theology is VOID on understanding rather clear verses.
quote:
Understand my answer.
I would like to first see what your answer is to my WHY questions. Then, I will either agree or disagree with it. But I can't understand what hasn't been explained.
quote:
I think most people here on the forum understand the answer I have given and how you distort things.
You might get some feedback on that. 
quote:
Do you wish to find out more on human ability?
No, I wish to find out about how the reformed can explain the WHY questions on John 8:24.
quote:
Dont use; 24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." because it does not say!
Please explain WHY Jesus warned either the non-elect or the elect.
quote:
Go further down to CLEARER text like this;
43"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
45"But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
46"Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
47"He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."
That is clearer text and Jesus certainly does not rant, rave, preach, or proclaim and praise their free-will.
These verses don't answer the WHY question. Even if they weren't hearing, WHY did Jesus bother warning them? You haven't even explained that! Can you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 2:39:01 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3467
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
FreeGrace,
quote:
Since ALL Scripture is profitable, why would Jesus have any "secret motives" when warning either non-elect, or "pre-faith" elect? Neither makes sense, from the reformed pov.
Jesus spoke to some people in parables. Some of these people were given no understanding and yet He still spoke to them in parables that He knew they were not grasping.
Why would He speak truth to them in parables when He knew and was perfectly clear they were VOID of any understanding on these secret things?
Why do you think He would do such a thing?
Do you suppose that God exercises justice as well as kindness on the earth?
10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
Jesus replies;
11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
But the question still remains as to why? Why is it given to us and not to them? Why does He speak to them in that way so that they do not understand?
What is the reason and purpose of giving certain people the knowledge of the secrets.......but not to others?
13This is why I speak to them in parables:
He now gives the reason why;
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'
They have eyes but are blind......ears but are deaf. They see without really seeing. They hear without really hearing. They do not understand because they were not given any "knowledge of the secrets".
16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.
Blessed. I really notice that word. It has a real and certain meaning.
Their eyes and ears have been blessed!
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD , who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD.
For Jesus to keep knowledge away from certain people is an exercise of His righteousness in justice.
For Jesus to bless the eyes and ears of others so they can see and hear is an exercise of His righteousness in kindness (mercy).
Both are a display of His righteousness.
And in the exercise of His will, out of pure kindness, He brought us forth by the word of truth.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 2:41:09 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
So, I agree, that God does not cause man to sin – He does not force man to sin – man does this of His own volition. Man is responsible for his own sin and is without excuse for his sin. But it is God who decreed that there would be sin. Truly a mystery.
You are being quite inconsistent here. You admit volition on the part of man. That is free will. Definition: act of the willing, exercise of the will. Yet, you RT pov denies free will. You are confused.
No, I am not confused, but you sure seem to be. My position does not deny that man is free to choose that which he desires. My position has always been that. Your lack of seeing this is evidence of not taking time to understand what I am saying.
Your definition of free will to be only "free to choose that which one desires", is NOT what the definition of free choice means. If one can only "freely choose" what one desires, then they aren't really facing a choice, now, are they? You need to think about the real meaning of free choice. The word "choice" demands options. Your definition of "choice" limits options to only what one desires. btw, where in Scripture do you find such a "definition" of free choice?
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Actually, you have to "assume" that God caused him to believe, when there is no suggestion or hint of it.
There is no suggestion or hint in Acts explaining how Cornelius came to believe one way or the other. Any conclusions about the cause of Cornelius believing must be found in other passages, such as 1 Cor 1-3, 2 Cor 4, Romans 1 . . .
The text of Acts 10 is very clear that when the angel presented divine Truth to Cornelius, he immediately acted upon it, demonstrating quite clearly that he believed the angel.
The purpose of Acts 10 is obviously not to show the cause of Cornelius’ actions and the cause of his belief. To use Cornelius to prove cause of belief and it not being found in the text is presumption gone to seed.
While that is not the "purpose", neveretheless, Acts DOES show that Cornelius believed the divine Truth that was being presented to him. Do you deny this?
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
From Romans 1, it is FACT that God has made evident His existence so that it is clearly seen, leaving man without excuse for not seeking Him. One has to presuppose that freedom of choice doesn't exist to NOT see man's freedom of choice in the passage.
I agree that freedom of choice is in the passage. I have never disagreed with that. The point that I disagree with you is that some DO choose to honor God based upon that which God made evident of Himself in creation. That concept is found nowhere in Romans 1.
The principle of "freedom of choice" is there, as you admit, which renders you inconsistent. The "concept" of that freedom of choice is seen in the life of Cornelius, which you reject.
I don’t reject that Cornelius has the freedom to choose that which he desires. What I reject is that the cause of Cornelius’ choosing is found in the text of Acts 10.
What did he "choose" in Acts 10? He chose to reverence God, he chose to pray continually, he chose to believe the angel, and he believed the gospel. Why don't you see who was doing the choosing?
quote:
quote:
quote:
The topic is much greater than the existence of God as Creator, but is why Paul is eager to preach the gospel: it the power of God for salvation for all who believe and it is this way because it has been revealed from faith to faith. The need for the gospel has been revealed from heaven – God’s wrath, which men deserve for they have not honored God in a way that is appropriate to the revelation of His character and attributes found in creation.
I don't argue with any of this. Yet, you deny the specific points I've pointed out that come directly from the passage.
I deny your “specific points” that you have imposed upon the passage. I say that you have imposed them upon the passage because they cannot be found “directly from the passage.”
They are most definitely seen from the passage. One must come to this passage with a presupposition that free will and man's ability to seek and believe do NOT exist to NOT see it.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Paul is not saying that they didn’t honor the existence of God, but that they did not honor Him as who He is – God. All men have lesser views of God than He is in reality; the natural man belittles God. Fallen man may acknowledge the existence of God, but he does not honor God in a way that is due His glorious and holy name.
The error is in thinking that Paul was describing everyone in humanity. God created man to seek Him, and therefore, man HAS that ability to do so, as Cornelius clearly demonstated.
Your Cornelius mantra has nothing to do with my statement. Paul did not say in Romans 1 that those who deserve God’s wrath did not honor the existence of God, but that they did not honor God according to the attributes that creation shows Him to be.
The text concerning Cornelius does not show the cause of His believing, therefore cannot be used as proof of cause.
The text is very clear that Cornelius was doing these things. Your defense that the "cause" is not shown is as weak as the reformed pov that Acts 13:48 refers to God doing the "ordaining", when His Name is not even in the text. How come you can "get away" with such a defense, but you deny another pov the "same" argument?
iow, God isn't mentioned in Acts 13:48, yet all reformed understand the "ordaining" coming from God. You have no support for that, yet you grip tenaciously to that understanding even though God isn't mentioned as the "cause" of the ordaining. Y'all just claim it's "obvious" from the text.
Well, I'm claiming the same thing. It's obvious from the text that Cornelius was doing the causing and choosing.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The knowledge of God’s glorious attributes seen in creation (v20) should lead all men to honor Him (give glory to Him due His glorious being) in a way that is agreeable to His holy character. It should lead all men to give thanks to Him.
And... Cornelius did exactly that.
Again, the cause of whatever Cornelius did is not given in the text of Acts 10. To try to prove a cause of believing where no cause is given is showing nothing more than presumption.
See above re: cause.
quote:
quote:
What do you think "being thankful" means?
I think it means being appreciative and grateful for who God is as He has revealed Himself in creation. Romans 1 does not speak of seeking God, but not being grateful for who God is.
How would someone express such gratitude? Why wouldn't seeking Him and praying continually to Him be such an expression?
quote:
quote:
quote:
Giving thanks is the appropriate response to the glorious revelation of God made evident in creation.
Sure it does. Now, give me an example of how that is demonstrated in one's life. I've already given you the example of Cornelius. Now you tell me how that is demonstrated, if not by the life of Cornelius.
It is not demonstrated in anyone’s life, for none have honored Him or given thanks based upon the revelation of God seen in creation.
Yet, the text says that Cornelius was God fearing, which means reverence. So you are plain wrong. He honored God as an expression of his gratitude to God.
quote:
Cornelius cannot be used as an example because the facts we have of him do not address one way or the other of the cause of his believing.
Why do you demand the text specifically claiming that God caused him to believe? It's not found anywhere else, for that matter. Also, why do you demand that Acts 13:48 says that God ordained the Gentiles, when His Name isn't even mentioned there?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 2:56:54 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
The pinnacle of God’s law is to love Him with every fiber of your being. This is God’s ultimate command. All other commands are wrapped up in this one command to love God. Man does not do this. Why not? Is he able to do so? Yes, he is able in the sense that he has a will, but he chooses not to love God with all his heart, mind soul and strength
I don't recall any response on your part of 1 Kings 11:4. Do you have one? What does "wholly devoted" mean to you? David was, and Solomon was not. Explain that.
For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. (1Ki 11:4 ESV)
Did David love God with all His heart, mind, soul and strength? Ask Uriah the Hittite.
Why? He's dead. What does "wholly devoted" mean to you? Rather than ask a dead man, I'd rather read what the Bible says about man's ability to be completely devoted to God.
quote:
quote:
quote:
So, man is unwilling to fulfill God’s purpose for man which is to love God with all of his being.
Your statement here contradicts RT and supports FW.
It in no way contradicts Reformed Theology. You show your lack of understanding here.
No, I think you don't understand the principle of being "unwilling". To be so demands the ability to be either willing or unwilling. iow, you cannot be "unwilling" if you cannot be "willing".
quote:
quote:
The issue of being willing or unwilling is one of choice.
No, it is not a matter of choice, but rather a matter of the current disposition of the heart and mind which determines the will. One who is unwilling will not choose that which he is unwilling to do, unlesse he is willing to do it. In other words, a person only chooses that which he is willing to choose.
Then it simply is NO CHOICE, but you've agreed man HAS free choice. so, which is it? You are still being contradictory.
quote:
quote:
Please explain "wholly devoted" from 1 Kings 11:4.
1 Kings 11:4 does not negate that fact that King David committed adultry
and had someone murdered, thus graphically showing that he did not love God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength. David was unwilling to honor God by loving Him with all his heart, soul, mind and strength by committing adultry and murder. He is yet another example of man's inability to live up to God's perfect standard. He is also a man through whom God demonstrated His mercy and grace.
Please explain what "wholy devoted" means to you.
quote:
quote:
quote:
God makes man willing, by the power of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man.
Yes, I know all about your theology of force.
I would say you belittle the power of God and uplift and exalt the supposed power of man.
I point out the weakness of your theology. I never belittle God. I've NEVER "uplifted and exalted the supposed power of man". In fact, I've repeatedly acknowledged that man is powerless to save himself, and MUST submit to the will of God and believe on His Son for salvation. How you guys twist that into "exalting man" is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 3:18:32 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10242
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
quote:
Since ALL Scripture is profitable, why would Jesus have any "secret motives" when warning either non-elect, or "pre-faith" elect? Neither makes sense, from the reformed pov.
Jesus spoke to some people in parables. Some of these people were given no understanding and yet He still spoke to them in parables that He knew they were not grasping.
Yes, He did. Do you consider John 8:24 to be a "parable", then? Is that your final answer here? If you do, then I disagree with you. If you realize that John 8:24 is not a parable, why can't you, in light of your own theology, explain WHY Jesus warned them and gave them the solution to their dilemma?
quote:
Why would He speak truth to them in parables when He knew and was perfectly clear they were VOID of any understanding on these secret things?
John 8:24 isn't a parable, so your answer here is simply sidestepping the question of WHY did Jesus bother warning either the non-elect or elect.
quote:
Why do you think He would do such a thing?
Not sure what you are asking. Why He spoke in parables? Because they weren't listening or paying attention to Him. iow, why bother giving truth to those who don't care, or don't pay attention?
quote:
Do you suppose that God exercises justice as well as kindness on the earth?
10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
Jesus replies;
11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
Since John 8:24 is a narrative and not a parable, none of this is relevant to my question as to WHY Jesus warned and gave the solution to either the non-elect or the "pre-faith" elect.
quote:
But the question still remains as to why? Why is it given to us and not to them? Why does He speak to them in that way so that they do not understand?
What is the reason and purpose of giving certain people the knowledge of the secrets.......but not to others?
13This is why I speak to them in parables:
He now gives the reason why;
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'
They have eyes but are blind......ears but are deaf. They see without really seeing. They hear without really hearing. They do not understand because they were not given any "knowledge of the secrets".
But John 8:24 isn't a parable, so these verses aren't applicable to my question of WHY Jesus warned them.
quote:
For Jesus to keep knowledge away from certain people is an exercise of His righteousness in justice.
I fully understand why Jesus spoke in parables to those who had rejected Him. But John 8:24 isn't a parable, so hiding behind your "parable defense" is defenseless.
quote:
For Jesus to bless the eyes and ears of others so they can see and hear is an exercise of His righteousness in kindness (mercy).
Both are a display of His righteousness.
And in the exercise of His will, out of pure kindness, He brought us forth by the word of truth.
Once again, you have NOT answered the WHY questions. It's becoming quite clear that you are simply unable, with your theology, to do so.
In the light of reformed theology, Jesus' warning makes no sense. He warns those who were "fitted to destruction" per Rom 9:22. Why bother warning them? And why bother giving them the solution, since they weren't chosen to believe anyway? That's what I'm asking, and you haven't yet answered.
Or, why bother warning the "pre-faith" elect, since they were chosen "before the foundation of the world" to believe, according to your pov. In that case, they really were never in danger of "dying in their sins".
You see, your own theology cannot answer these very simple questions. I would think that should give you some pause.
So far, your answers have been:
Jesus was just telling the truth. (that denies the clear warning)
Jesus had secret motives. (that is just ridiculous)
Jesus spoke in parables. (Yes, but John 8:24 isn't one of them)
At least you've begun to think about John 8:24. Since your own theology doesn't help you understand, much less, explain the text, I suggest you give it a lot more thought.
The free will pov provides a very clear answer, that fits the text. Jesus died for everyone, so that is why He could tell anyone to believe in Himself. Also, He warned them and gave them the solution to their danger because they were able to apply the solution to their problem and avoid the danger. Simple.
You have yet to provide a clear explanation of WHY Jesus warned the group as he did, whether they were the "non-elect" or of the "pre-faith elect". In either case, WHY bother with the warning.
There is NO reason to, in light of your theology.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 3:35:48 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3467
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
FreeGrace,
quote:
These verses don't answer the WHY question.
Even if they weren't hearing, WHY did Jesus bother warning them?
You haven't even explained that! Can you?
You are trying to say that since He warned these people with truth it implies they have the ability to believe.
The original verse does not answer that.
It is ONLY a statement of truth.
Here is the verse again;
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."
Why dont you take all of those words in that text and show us all EXACTLY where it says humans have the ability or inability to believe? You can mix the words up in any fashion you desire for all I care, but I would like to see you show us in that text where it speaks of human ability or inability.
Maybe if I shift all the letters around like some giant jig saw puzzle or a scrabble game I can get it to say "humans have the ability to believe by their free-will".......but I doubt even that.
If a man quacks it will sound like a duck and if a man barks it will sound like a dog. (truth) It does not mean men are ducks or dogs and it certainly does not mean a mute man has the ability to do either.
Now, unless you can fly like a bird you will remain like a man. (truth) If you pop a balloon it will burst. (truth) Do you want to add some gigantic secret meaning to those? All they say is what they say.
Here are other verses that can be used as support for the other verse;
43"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
45"But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
46"Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
47"He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."
Why?
Jesus asks the people (the same people you say can understand) WHY they do not understand.
He claims they cannot hear His word.
Why dont you just stop right there and read no more.
You should be able to come to some imaginary conclusion as to why they cannot hear. Do what you usually do and apply more of your own thoughts to the text and imagine He said that to them because all the people He was speaking to had earmuffs on because it was so cold outside. Now we can conclude it was winter and they had earmuffs and that is why they could not hear. 
Most people would not stop there and they would read a little more to get a better understanding of the situation. By reading on we can find that earmuffs and winter are not even mentioned in the text.
To speculate they could not hear because they were wearing earmuffs because it was winter is just that....speculation.
By reading further we see that;
If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
"He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."
This is it in a nutshell;
Why dont you understand? It is because you cannot hear Me. I speak the truth and yet you do not believe Me. If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? Those who are of God hear the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.
I forgot what you said;
quote:
You shouldn't, because simply providing a quote from a passage without comment does not answer specific questions.
Me, being the silly fool that I am should have never ever imagined I could have answered any of your questions with clear Scripture of Jesus explaining things.
I guess His comments are not as important and truthful as those of other people.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 3:39:22 PM
|
|
|
Diolectic
Posts: 707
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Iowa
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncherquote:
ORIGINAL: kelmanquote:
ORIGINAL: Diolecticquote]ORIGINAL: kelman
Because God is God - there is no other reason That is no reason for worship, unless He is worthy. Excuse me? You're saying that because God is God is no reason to worship Him?...surely, you can't mean that. God thinks He's worthy of prayerful worship just because He is God. He is righteous like none other just because He is God.
There it is kelman...
Ocassionally someone declares it !
Questioning the very character of God
Dude! Did you even look at my responce?
I am not questioning the very character of God. I am disprooving kelman's circular reasonin.
God has proven Himself to be worthy, that is how He is worthy!!!
No one, not even God can be worthy for no other reason but just because he says so, or just because of the office he holds.
quote:
Setting the standards for God- WOW ! No, acknowledging the ones that He has already set.
quote:
Telling God what constitutes worthiness. No, explaining the truth of what constitutes worthiness.
quote:
Evaluating and measuring God's choices No. Evaluating and measuring y'alls theology/doctrines.
quote:
against what a feeble, sinful man thinks. Christians should not be sinful since they have received eternal life. Sinners do not enter heaven. No christian are sinners any more.
quote:
Sounds like God must earn some people's
submission and obedience. And if God dare
deviate from man's expectations, there will
be consequences ! IOW, shape up God, and
come around to man's way of thinking NOW ! Stop, your embarassing yourself. Read my responce if you didn't already, & if you did, I suggest you re-read it.
< Message edited by Diolectic -- 8/10/2008 4:13:19 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 3:51:13 PM
|
|
|
Diolectic
Posts: 707
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Iowa
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: Diolectic
quote:
quote:
God can not choose(elect) with out reason & purpose, He doesn't... Though His choice isn't because someone did something... Tell me then, what the Criteria for God electing?
God does what He wants... That only depends on what you think He wants.
Apparently with your theology/doctrine, I wouldn't trust you to know what God wants.
quote:
Why must you dictate to The King ? I've explained this so many times before, you refuse to acknowledge that fact I am not agains God, BUT against YOUR THEOLOGY/DOCTRINE
I am not dictating to God.
quote:
See the pattern ? God's pleasure ! That only depends on what you think He God's pleasure is.
Apparently with your theology/doctrine, I wouldn't trust you to know what God's pleasure is.
quote:
Will man talk back to God ?
Will man tell God what is right ?
WHATEVER God does is right !!! Again, not about God, BUT YOUR THEOLOGY/DOCTRINE
Yes, I am yelling, becuse your being obstinate.
It's like talking to a wall, but worse, walls can't listen or understand but you can but will not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 3:53:08 PM
|
|
|
Diolectic
Posts: 707
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Iowa
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: Diolectic
God can not choose(elect) with out reason & purpose,
He doesn't... Though His choice isn't because someone did something...
What is His choice based on? Exactly, thanx.
Will he give an un-arbitrary answer as they all do?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 3:53:43 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3467
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
balbas,
quote:
This Lord's day is shaping out to be a very blessed one.
Amen to that!
The devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour and it is no wonder; for even Satan himself is able to take the form of an angel of light.
And yet we do not worry!
His sheep follow him because they know his voice.
But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."
Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
His sheep will never follow a stranger.
Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe.
The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
Have a great day!
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/10/2008 4:12:03 PM
|
|
|
Diolectic
Posts: 707
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Iowa
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncherquote:
ORIGINAL: Diolecticquote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Because God is God - there is no other reason That is no reason for worship, unless He is worthy. Excuse me? You're saying that because God is God is no reason to worship Him?...surely, you can't mean that. God thinks He's worthy of prayerful worship just because He is God. He is righteous like none other just because He is God. What I said is true.
You just gave the reasons why God is worthy.
God must have reasons to be worthy, and you gave them.
I am saddened by your post diolectic...
You appear to want your own manmade god.
I AM THAT I AM ...God is what He is
Are you comfortable with your assessment ?
"God must have REASONS to be worthy"
Holy smokes ! I re-read that 10 times ! Shocking ! Worthy:
1. having adequate or great merit, character, or value: a worthy successor.
2. of commendable excellence or merit; deserving: a book worthy of praise; a person worthy to lead.
Nothing can be worthy in and of its self.
Worthy implies merit.
God merits Himself by what HE does.
Tell me. If God did not "DO" rightousness, would he be rightous?
quote:
God must be who you want Him to be ?
God must act how you want Him to act ?
God must prove Himself worthy ? Knock it off!
logic and reality.
God can not be ilogical, nor can He be contrary to reality.
God does not dwell in the realm of lies(unreality & noncense)
quote:
You also wrote another peculiar thought, which
has haunted me as well with it's blatant fist
shaking at God, that God must meet your approval
and fit the definition you have established. Do you actualy read my posts?
quote:
From you : " However,
God is not holy and rightous just because He is God.
God must act and be holy and rightous " Prove it wrong.
quote:
God DEFINES righteousness and holiness.
Anything and everything God does is such. You just proved me correct.
That which God does is proofe of His worthyness.
Tell me.
If God did not act Holy, would HE remain holy?
quote:
God must act how you think He should act ? What I "think" is rightous & Holy is what God has told us is.
Therefore, God acts as what I "think" is rightous & Holy because HE has told us what is & Holy.
quote:
WHATEVER God does IS perfect and holy. You acknowleged what I said to be true again.
WHATEVER God does prooves that He IS perfect and holy.
quote:
For some reason, you struggle with this... For some reason, you struggle with comrehention.
< Message edited by Diolectic -- 8/10/2008 11:14:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
