|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 8:19:31 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6692
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
God also has created mankind to love Him with all the heart, mind, soul and strength. No one has been able to do this.
What passage do you have to support your claim here? Yes, we ARE commanded to love Him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. But where is the passage that says that man was created to do this? Unless you have a solid verse of support, your whole argument falls apart.
OK...this is way out there folks !!! Man was NOT made to love God ? That would include obey, honor, worship, etc So why, oh why was man made ??? DO TELL !!! Let me guess...to exercise freewill and choose ???
It appears that you don't have any support from the Bible either.
Acts 17:27 declares why God created man. Why didn't you know that?
quote:
What will we be doing in Heaven Free ?
Worshiping God.
quote:
You recently told us your thoughts on the gospel-the gospel is NOT a deep thing of God...WOW !
No, it's not. It's a simple thing. The Bible is clear that God makes Himself evident to all, so why would you think the gospel is a deep thing?
Besides, the very many unbelievers who clearly understand the gospel yet reject it disproves your notion anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 8:26:24 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1516
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
FG,
quote:
quote:
Using the text as written in Romans 3:9-12, prove to us that Paul is not speaking of "all under sin" when he says in the same breath, "as it is written . . . none seek after God . . ." Show us by the language, clear train of thought, and words used that Paul is warning about not being a fool after saying "all are under sin, as it is written . . ."
For the umpteenth time, there are 2 reasons:
Paul has already previously noted fools in 1:21,22.
If none seek God, then God is a failure when it comes to creating creatures for the purpose of seeking Him. But, God is not a failure. Your point crumbles.
Your second reason: “if none seek God, then God is a failure when it comes to creating creatures for the purpose of seeking Him,” is a philosophical statement that should not be used to interpret Scripture. Scripture stands on its own and should be interpreted using hermeneutical principles. We should not cloud the issue with philosophy.
Your first argument: “Paul has already previously noted fools n 1:21-22” does not answer the question at hand. What did Paul state in Romans 3:9-12?
My point is that Paul clearly writes what he means:
“. . . both Jews and Greeks are all under sin, as it is written, there is none righteous . . . there is none who seeks for God . . .”
Paul makes the great statement that all are under sin
He states “as it is written” which is obviously referring to what he has just stated (“all under sin”)
He quotes what is written, “there is none who seeks for God” which is the scriptural proof he uses to show that all are under sin.
If you believe that Paul is speaking of fools in Romans 3:10-12, then Paul makes no sense at all.
All are under sin, as it is written, fools do not seek God.
That makes no sense FG.
So, show us how the wording of Romans 3:9-12 makes sense with your interpretation. In other words, show us why the scholars of most modern translations are wrong.
_____________________________
-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 - 7/21/2008 8:31:06 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6692
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
All I see is to either believe the Truth or reject/suppress that Truth. Please explain what other "incorrect" options you see.
Please also explain why you reject believing that Truth is not an option, in your mind.
First, these choices you keep celebrating have nothing to do with "choosing" Christ.
Why didn't you explain why you reject that believing that Truth is not an option?
quote:
This springboard you attempt to use to go from mental pondering of God, with a vague, nebulous, foggy tolerance of God, to a seeker/believer is not plausible.
Certainly not plausible to a reformist. Otherwise, he/she would have to "reform" their thinking some more.
quote:
The TRUTH of Christ is not in play here.
Did God provide the Truth of the gospel to Cornelius or not? Yes, He did, which demonstrates my point.
quote:
That "decision" as you say, has not been developed to the extent that one could be in a position to make a cognitive, rational choice between 2 opposing philosophies.
Your notion is incorrect. You seem to forget that God created man in His own image. That includes using his rational and cognitive mind in order to form opinions and make decisions between 2 opposing philosophies. btw, the gospel is NOT a philosophy, although calvinism is, according to a former threadie, none other than Turretinfan. Just check out post #25 where he admitted it.
quote:
If consequences, tangencies, corollaries, and alternatives are not presented:no real choice.
By whose authority do you make this claim?
quote:
If they are presented, (they aren't here) then you are asking a spiritual midget and a man who is spiritually bankrupt, and incapable of making a spiritual decision, because he is a spiritual invalid, to make an eternal life altering choice in his condition of idiocy.
Hardly. Your attempts at dramatization fail to dramatize. Who is asking a "spiritual midget" anything? Have you forgotten that the unregenerate cannot be a "spiritual midget" since they are spiritually dead? Big difference.
And you have no support at all for the unregenerate being incapable of making a spiritual decision. Cornelius was unregenerate when Peter came with the gospel, and he believed.
You have demonstrated the contradiction of your own position by these words:
spiritual midget
spiritual invalid
condition of idiocy
because you have grouped all these phrases together as if they mean the same thing. You even missed the only accurate term for the unbeliever; spiritually dead.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 8:33:51 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6692
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
The fuss comes from the reformed side who want to think that God is the cause of man's believing. He IS the cause of the evidence which is clearly seen by everyone, so that no one has an excuse for missing it.
So, according to you and your opinion, God collects and presents alternatives.
This shouldn't be so hard for you to understand, Manna. How you come to your "conclusions" is beyond me. God presents the Truth. Can you understand that? That's what Romans 1 tells us.
When He does, man has a choice: either believe what God makes evident, or reject it. Can you understand that?
quote:
The climatic culmination is man's choice ?
Absolutely not. The climactic culmination is when God gives eternal life to whosoever believes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 8:38:20 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6692
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Why do you reformists continue with this silly line of thinking? I've NEVER said the Truth that God makes evident noted in Romans 1 brings one to salvation. It DOES bring one to the knowledge of God's existence, from which man has no excuse for not seeking Him.
Give us the next step in your program. This is step # 1, now what's step #2 ? A man believes God exists, now what ?
Just look at the life of Cornelius. God gives more light to those who seek Him. Remember the angel?
quote:
If man came to this realization on his own-then he would be accountable to reach the next level of development on his own also ?
 Why do you say "on his own"? Don't you believe what Paul declares in Romans 1:19,20? "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God MADE IT EVIDENT TO THEM. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
Based on that, how can you say man comes to this realization on his own?
quote:
When is Jesus allowed to jump in the fray ?
When the gospel is presented.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 8:43:27 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6692
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
You won't like my answers. I believe that what God creates man to do he is ABLE to do.
You answers leave man wanting...Your answers leave man alone in this forsaken place without hope, without God.
Your questions make no sense. Please re-phrase so your point can be ascertained.
quote:
What else is this SUPERman able to do ?
Who are you talking about? 
quote:
This is mighty important...where's the clue ? IOW, where does God say, "man is able to"-
Because God created man to seek Him. Plus, God has made evident to man His existence, nature, power and attributes, which are clearly seen, so that man is without excuse. You have no excuse for not grasping this.
quote:
Some of us are fully aware of our inability.
I think all on this thread are fully aware of their inability to save themselves, even though the reformed fail to acknowledge it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 9:10:31 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6692
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
FG,
quote:
quote:
Using the text as written in Romans 3:9-12, prove to us that Paul is not speaking of "all under sin" when he says in the same breath, "as it is written . . . none seek after God . . ." Show us by the language, clear train of thought, and words used that Paul is warning about not being a fool after saying "all are under sin, as it is written . . ."
For the umpteenth time, there are 2 reasons:
Paul has already previously noted fools in 1:21,22.
If none seek God, then God is a failure when it comes to creating creatures for the purpose of seeking Him. But, God is not a failure. Your point crumbles.
Your second reason: “if none seek God, then God is a failure when it comes to creating creatures for the purpose of seeking Him,” is a philosophical statement that should not be used to interpret Scripture. Scripture stands on its own and should be interpreted using hermeneutical principles. We should not cloud the issue with philosophy.
Your statement that what I've said is a philosophical statement is just your opinion. You have yet to explain how God could create creatures for the purpose of seeking Him, yet none do. Why can't you explain that?
quote:
Your first argument: “Paul has already previously noted fools n 1:21-22” does not answer the question at hand. What did Paul state in Romans 3:9-12?
It does, but you may reject that answer as often as you want to.
quote:
My point is that Paul clearly writes what he means:
“. . . both Jews and Greeks are all under sin, as it is written, there is none righteous . . . there is none who seeks for God . . .” [
Of course Paul writes what he means. And his direct quote from Psa 14 and 53 should tell you something.
quote:
Paul makes the great statement that all are under sin
Yes, and he even re-iterates it in 3:23 in that great passage where he includes the entire human race in who can be justified through faith.
quote:
He states “as it is written” which is obviously referring to what he has just stated (“all under sin”)
there is your problem. The phrase "as it is written" is the way those being quoted in Scripture were going to quote from the OT. That phrase is used 43 times in the NASB, 30 in the NT alone. I'll let you look each one up. In every case, some text from the OT is being quoted.
Your linking "as it is written" to the previous verse is a serious error.
quote:
He quotes what is written, “there is none who seeks for God” which is the scriptural proof he uses to show that all are under sin.
Your attempt to to use the folly of fools to "prove" that all men are under sin is nonsensical. Paul doesn't need to prove it. Under the authority of the Holy Spirit, his stating it is enough.
quote:
If you believe that Paul is speaking of fools in Romans 3:10-12, then Paul makes no sense at all.
You think so only because your theology doesn't make sense, and you are looking at the passage through the lens of calvinism.
quote:
All are under sin, as it is written, fools do not seek God. That makes no sense FG.
When he wrote, "as it is written" his audience would immediately know that he was about to quote from the OT. Here is all that he quoted from:
Rom 3:10-12 - Psa 14:1-3 and Psa 53:1-3
3:13 - Psa 5:9, speaking about David's enemies, and Psa 140:3, about evil and violent men (not all men are violent, SH)
3:14 - Psa 10:7. In that context, v.3,4 speak of the wicked and greedy men who do not seek Him, and all his thoughts are "there is no God". Interesting.
3:15-17 - Isa 59:7,8
3:18 - Psa 36:1
So, only if you can prove that each of these verses, from 10-18 can be applied to everyone in the world inclusively would you have a point.
Even a cursory reading of 3:10-18 should be obvious that what is being described does NOT describe everyone in the human race.
quote:
So, show us how the wording of Romans 3:9-12 makes sense with your interpretation. In other words, show us why the scholars of most modern translations are wrong.
Why do you keep asking "show us" when I have?
The burden of proof is on you to prove that Rom 3:10-18 describes everyone in the human race. It doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2008 3:53:08 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
The "principle" falls flat since there are many "examples" where the result is not the same. Kelman,
I've been lazy reading about the Cornelius arguement. Can you educate me as to what this is all about?
FG contends that Cornelius was not included in the Rom 1 verses which indicate that all men are under the wrath of God, that all are under the judgment of sin, that all men suppress righteousness. He contends the only ones these verses refer to are "fools". SureHope has repeatedly and I might add, expertly, proven from Scripture that this is incorrect.
FG seems to think it signifcant that Paul quotes, in part, from Psalm 14 so that "only" fools are in view. What he fails to realize it that God considers ALL sinners to be fools. So, Paul is indeed speaking of all mankind(Jew and Gentile) in Rom 3. A simply word study will show that sinners are fools; therefore, we all qualify as having been fools.
FG also contends when man recognizes that God exists because of the evidence of creation he will be given "more light". I pointed out this was not true - many, especially in the past, believed God exists yet were never given more light.
I think what was going probably going on in Acts 10 is that God regenerated Cornelius somewhere at the beginning of the chapter and later when Peter preached the Gospel Cornelius became saved.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2008 4:05:03 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
1 Cor 2:14 is speaking of the "deep things of God", of which the gospel is NOT that. So you are using a verse out of context to support your notion. There is no particular mention of "deep things of God" in those verses. Paul says it is the power of the Spirit which teaches NOT the wisdom or preaching of man. What is being spoken about is the Gospel...which is in and of itself "deep" enough.
It is by the power of God that man gains this "wisdom". And it goes on to say that the natural man cannot know the things of God because it can be discerned only by the spiritual man - not the FOOLISH man. And men become spiritual men when they are regenerated - God no longer considers them to be fools.
quote:
Why do you think I believe the result will always be the same? Cornelius demonstrates that unregenerate man can believe the divine revelation of truth that God makes evident. That's all. No, FG, that is NOT all. You have said that once a man believes the light God gives God WILL give additional light. And, that simply is not true.
quote:
quote:
I'll try one more time. There are many who have believed the "light" God gave them yet have NOT received any "more light". This is why I say your "principle" concerning Cornnelius doesn't hold-up.
How do you know who has or has not received more light? Are you claiming some kind of omniscience? If I can't know whether there are those who believe God exists but received no additional "light"/the Gospel, then neither can you know they have.
But, frankly, FG, it would be silly to speculate that of the multiple millions who have never received the Gospel there were not those who believed a supreme Being created this world.
quote:
quote:
LFW - means "that a person is fully able to perform some other action in place of the one that is actually done, and this is not predetermined by any prior circumstances, our desires or even our affections..... One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise. "
Does that about sum up your definition?
Not even close. No wonder most of the posts keep going over your heads. I would NEVER argue for that silly definition. Good, then it's time to close down the thread. It would appear then that the freewillers have been unable to articulate their beliefs.
Are you now admitting that indeed God is the determining factor in your act of believing? That you did make your choice because of the determining influence of God?
Very odd, though, since especialy that last sentence(bolded above) "One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise" is straight from the freewiller's handbook.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2008 4:07:53 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
O:
even by allowing us to have free will God's will still is done.
I dont think it has to be or one or the other. Neither do i think giving people FW makes God less sovereign.
Kelman:
I think you're avoiding the example of God's determination of the Cross yet still holding man responsible. There was no way these men were not going to kill Christ - God ordained that they would. God determined, He ordained, yet, these men still by their own freewill killed Christ. That's how it worked then, that's how it works now.
Elaborate what you mean by freewill here, plz. I dont disagree, but i presumed your position was that people have no freewill... You mean they had a choice, it was up to them to do or not do it, they made the choice, influences and circumstances did not absolutely determine it? See THIS POST to FG where he asked the same question. In the meantime, they had a choice; but, it was definitely not free from influences.
Now, just what does that mean? When you are faced with a decision, you have choices. Your choices are freely made.
Means pretty much what it says. Judas and the others who killed Christ chose to do exactly as they did; but, according to God, this "choice" of theirs was predetermined by God. So, their choice was definitely not free from God's predetermination.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2008 4:12:16 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
For man to have the free will to choose for God aside from the determination, predestination and foreknowledge of God, this would negate all three...how could it not?
The real questionis, why do you think it would? Let's all sing together...one, two....."for the Bible tells me so". Look to the Cross. Did Judas, et al, have the free will to choose apart from God's stated determination? This was a certain act and for it to be certain - it had to have been determined. And, in this particular case, we know it was predetermined by God.
quote:
When God makes Himself evident to man, that creates a choice: to either believe Him or reject Him. Please explain why either believing or rejecting the Truth He makes evident would negate any of His attributes.
Believing God exists does not negate His attributes since He declares His creation is sufficient to know He exists. You continue to think that believing the evidence/light in creation automatically means you will receive additional evidence of light - it doesn't.
In addition, God shows us from Scripture that He does indeed influence man's decisions, i.e., the Cross, Joseph and his brothers, Pharoah.
quote:
quote:
Scripture says God ordains us to salvation(Act 13:48).
You may cling to that erroneous translation all you want. Tasso does not mean to ordain. Sorry, FG, your ideas simply do not wash in the light of Scripture. Tasso does indeed mean ordain/appoint not "dispose" as you would suppose.
quote:
quote:
It says we are predestined unto salvation(Eph 1:5,11).
Our choosing in 1:4 is based on being "in Him", which is dependent upon our faith. Neither verse says what you want them to say.
The "why" we are in Christ is very clearly stated in the next verses "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"
quote:
quote:
There is no room in these verses and in God's actions which allow for man to exercise a free will apart from God's influence.
No one has argued against the idea of God's influence. In fact, that's been one of my main points. Romans 1:18-24 is ALL ABOUT God's influence, by His making Himself evident to man so that man has no excuse. I fear you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters here. Or, could it be you just don't understand? The "influence" of which I speak is not the evidence from creation...surely you knew that. For example, it is the "influence" of God on Judas et al concerning the crucifixion of Christ.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2008 5:25:55 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: McFatty
Your calling everything a work is not what we're talking about,.... I'm not calling everything a work; but, God is definitely calling love, joy and FAITH a work.
quote:
Calvinists seem to often use single verses of the Bible which, when looked at in context of the whole chapter, indicate something different than what they want it to. A good example would be Romans 3:11, where Old Testament is quoted to indicate that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile any longer. An excellent example of God insisting that there is neither Jew or Gentile who will seek Him - no, not one.
quote:
How do I know that it doesn't mean that? Because there are MANY Bible passages which talk about men seeking God. Because I want you to know what they are, I'll quote a few of them here. Again, excellent verses which will prove man cannot seek God, as God desires him to, unless God has first regenerated. Multiple millions of people "seek" God but do NOT find Him. So to insist otherwise is to call Scripture a fraud.
Man can never seek God with his "whole heart and soul" UNTIL God gives man a new heart a new spirit. God insists that fallen man's heart is "desperately wicked and deceitful above all things". Do you expect man to seek God with his whole wicked and deceitful heart? And do you expect this "desperately wicked and deceitful above all things" heart can somehow be pleasing to God?
quote:
Men commit the crime. The sentence is there. God no more sends people to hell than the house of representatives sends people to prison. People send themselves to prison when they commit the crime. Men are condemned because they sin; and, it is God who ordained that penalty and brings the punishment to pass.
quote:
Another big disagreement we have is that I can separate God knowing everything without the constraints of time and Him controlling everything everyone does at all times. You seem to be unable to separate these two. Is this true? So-called "constraints of time" is irrelevant. God cannot know what is not certain. His decree does not produce the event, but only renders its occurrence certain. Everything that God foreknows is certain, everything that is certain has been foreordained. Since God knows everything, everything is foreordained.
Was Judas, et al, free to choose other than what God had foreordained?
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2008 5:29:40 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
Free will doesnt mean we are making choice in vacuum, and are free from influences. I didnt deny influences, I said they dont absolutely determine the outcome.
God's "influence" does determine the outcome. Man can only freely choose God after God has prepared his heart. Prior to that man will not because he does not want to. This is in reference to believing unto salvation.
quote:
quote:
There is no room in these verses and in God's actions which allow for man to exercise a free will apart from God's influence
K, give me your view of free will again, i must be missing smthing. You said in the quote above:
they did it on their freewill. then you said: there is no freewill.
Man makes choices, he has the freewill to do so. But these choices cannot be other than what God has ordained. Since God has perfect foreknowledge, these "choices" must be certain; and, they can only be certain if they've been predetermined.
quote:
AS for FW coexisting with Gods power i just said not a while ago: of course it can be done. God can give fw to people and his will can still be done. Again, could Judas, et al, make any different choices other than what God says He determined? Were they free to choose other than what God foreknew they would choose?
While we act freely within the limits of our nature, God controls events so that its occurrence is certain.
The definition of Libertarian free will "Free will is affected by human nature but retains ability to choose contrary to our nature and desires."
To put it in terms of believing unto salvation, free will alleges man with his fallen nature, with desires in opposition to God can in some way "choose" for God. That would be contrary to his nature and desires.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2008 7:23:40 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6692
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
The "principle" falls flat since there are many "examples" where the result is not the same. Kelman,
I've been lazy reading about the Cornelius arguement. Can you educate me as to what this is all about?
FG contends that Cornelius was not included in the Rom 1 verses which indicate that all men are under the wrath of God, that all are under the judgment of sin, that all men suppress righteousness. He contends the only ones these verses refer to are "fools". SureHope has repeatedly and I might add, expertly, proven from Scripture that this is incorrect.
dc, sorry to inform you, but kelman has no clue as to my pov. In fact, Romans 1 is about the wrath of God being "against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." God's wrath is against those who suppress the truth. Now, what IS suppression of the truth? Continue on in Rom 1. We find that it is either rejection of the Truth of what God has made evident to everyone, or ignoring that Truth, v.21. My point is that as long as a man believes the truth that God reveals,and begins to seek Him, which we were created to do, per Acts 17:27, God will continue to provide more Truth, just as we see in the life of Cornelius. He believed the evidence that God gave him, and recognized and honored (reverenced) God, and his continual prayer indicated that he was seeking God. The result? God sent an angel with a message, which he also believed. Finally, God sent Peter with the gospel, which he also believed.
quote:
FG seems to think it signifcant that Paul quotes, in part, from Psalm 14 so that "only" fools are in view. What he fails to realize it that God considers ALL sinners to be fools. So, Paul is indeed speaking of all mankind(Jew and Gentile) in Rom 3. A simply word study will show that sinners are fools; therefore, we all qualify as having been fools.
kelman fails to realize that Paul has already mentioned fools in chapter 1:21,22, so when he directly quotes from Psa 14 and 53 in 3:10-12 he is reminding his audience that fools don't seek God. Further, IF 3:10-12 speaks of the entire human race, will kelman likewise treat v.13-18 in like manner? IF Paul is describing the entire human race, he must deal with ALL of the verses, not just v.10-12.
quote:
FG also contends when man recognizes that God exists because of the evidence of creation he will be given "more light". I pointed out this was not true - many, especially in the past, believed God exists yet were never given more light.
What kelman fails to consider is Rom 1:21 indicates that some, although "they knew (recognized God), they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks". Since those didn't honor or seek Him, why should God give them more light? But Cornelius DID reverence God and began to seek Him. And God DID give him more light.
quote:
I think what was going probably going on in Acts 10 is that God regenerated Cornelius somewhere at the beginning of the chapter and later when Peter preached the Gospel Cornelius became saved.
As usual, the reformed must assume that Cornelius was regenerated before he believed the gospel, yet, where in Acts 10 do we read any mention of the Holy Spirit in his life? At the END, not the beginning as kelman erroneously assumes.
You see, reformed theology must assume things that aren't mentioned in order to support their pov. All I've noted is what the text tells us. Yet they accuse me of "theory", when, in fact, it is their pov that is full of assumption and presupposition.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2008 7:35:33 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1516
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
FG,
quote:
quote:
He states “as it is written” which is obviously referring to what he has just stated (“all under sin”)
there is your problem. The phrase "as it is written" is the way those being quoted in Scripture were going to quote from the OT. That phrase is used 43 times in the NASB, 30 in the NT alone. I'll let you look each one up. In every case, some text from the OT is being quoted.
What’s your point? Of course “as it is written” is referring to something written in the OT. The question is, how is this phrase used and is it linking the scripture quoted to what has just been said? Or is it merely arbitrary scriptures quoted that has nothing to do with the context?
“As it is written” is used to show the validity of a statement or a thought.
quote:
Your linking "as it is written" to the previous verse is a serious error.
Let’s see if it is “serious error” as you claim. Here are a few “as it is written” examples:
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY; THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, ‘MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.’ ” John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. (Mark 1:1-4 NASB95)
Does Mark’s quote of Isaiah have anything to do with his initial statement, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ . . .”? Of course it does.
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 7 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ 8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” 9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. (Mark 7:6-9 NASB95)
Does what Jesus said have anything to do with the scripture he quotes? Of course it does. “As it is written” connects what Jesus said, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites” with the scripture he quotes. He thus establishes and validates His claim by the authority of the word of God.
22 And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “EVERY firstborn MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS.” (Luke 2:22-24 NASB95)
It is serious error to say that Luke quotes “the Law of the Lord” to give scriptural credence for what he is saying? Of course not. Luke is not changing the subject, but is making clear that what he is saying is in accord with the Scripture.
3 And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins; 4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, ‘MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT. (Luke 3:3-4 NASB95)
Does the phrase “as it is written” connect what Luke said before with the scripture quoted? By all means it does. Is it serious error to believe this? Just the opposite, it is serious error to try to force the language to say otherwise.
“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.’ ” (John 6:31 NASB95)
Does “as it is written” connect “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness” with the scripture quoted, “He gave them bread out of heaven to eat”? Yes, it does. Is serious error? No. Would it be serious error to try to force this passage to say that “it is written” is not connecting what went before with the scriptural quote? Yes, that would be serious error.
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” (Romans 1:17 NASB95)
Does “as it is written” connect what went before it with the scripture quoted? Yes!
Paul makes the statement: “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith”
Paul uses the transitional phrase “as it is written” to connect what he had just stated to the scriptural warrant for such a statement.
“But the righteous man shall live by faith” The scriptural quote gives authority and validation for the first statement that Paul made. The phrase, “as it is written” connects the first clause with the second clause.
May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.” (Romans 3:4 NASB95)
Obviously, it is not serious error to say that Paul is connecting, “. . . let God be found true, though every man be found liar,” to the scriptural quote, “That You may be justified in your words . . .” with the connecting phrase, “as it is written.” When Paul says “as it is written,” the term “as” shows us that he is referring back to the statement that he had just made and is connecting it with the quote from the OT. Paul gives validation to his previous statement by the authority of God’s word.
How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!” (Romans 10:15 NASB95)
1st clause: “How will they preach unless they are sent?” – clear statement made
Transitional phrase: “as it is written” – connecting what had been stated to an OT quote
2nd clause: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!” – that which validates and gives authority to the initial statement
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.” (Romans 3:9-12 NASB95)
Is this passage any different from the others? No. Paul makes a clear statement. He connects his initial statement to a quote from the OT with the phrase “as it is written.” He does this in order to validate what he had just stated with the authority of God’s word. Is this serious error? By no means; it is the truth. Would it be error to try to force the natural train of thought in any other way? Yes it, it definitely is error to do so.
Is this a Reformed presupposition? By no means; it is accepted by all conservative Protestants.
Where “as it is written” is used to point out a specific OT passage the formula is the same throughout. A statement is made . . . the transitional phrase is used: “as it is written” . . . the OT is quoted to affirm the first statement.
The reason that all translators of the major versions of the Bible are all in agreement here is because it is so very clear. The burdon of proof is upon you to prove the opposite.
To make your interpretation work you have to either disregard the clear flow of meaning of the passage or you have to come to the conclusion that all are under sin because fools don't seek God.
_____________________________
-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 - 7/22/2008 7:35:45 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6692
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
1 Cor 2:14 is speaking of the "deep things of God", of which the gospel is NOT that. So you are using a verse out of context to support your notion. There is no particular mention of "deep things of God" in those verses. Paul says it is the power of the Spirit which teaches NOT the wisdom or preaching of man. What is being spoken about is the Gospel...which is in and of itself "deep" enough.
You have no support for that verse to be speaking of the gospel, only your assumption.
quote:
It is by the power of God that man gains this "wisdom". And it goes on to say that the natural man cannot know the things of God because it can be discerned only by the spiritual man - not the FOOLISH man. And men become spiritual men when they are regenerated - God no longer considers them to be fools.
Wrong. Romans 1 is clear that God has made evident to everyone what is known about God, and His power, nature, and attributes are clearly seen so that no one has an excuse for not seeking Him, which we were created to do.
quote:
Why do you think I believe the result will always be the same? Cornelius demonstrates that unregenerate man can believe the divine revelation of truth that God makes evident. That's all. No, FG, that is NOT all. You have said that once a man believes the light God gives God WILL give additional light. And, that simply is not true.
You failed to get my whole point. Rom 1:21 speaks of those who "knew" God but didn't honor Him as God nor were thankful. That speaks of ignoring the Truth that God makes evident to them. Why should God give them more light, when they aren't interested. The point, kelman, is that whether one simply rejects the Truth that God makes evident, like fools, or ignores the Truth that God makes evident, like those in v.21, God hasn't promised to give more light to them. He HAS promised to those who seek Him that they will find Him.
quote:
quote:
quote:
I'll try one more time. There are many who have believed the "light" God gave them yet have NOT received any "more light". This is why I say your "principle" concerning Cornnelius doesn't hold-up.
How do you know who has or has not received more light? Are you claiming some kind of omniscience? If I can't know whether there are those who believe God exists but received no additional "light"/the Gospel, then neither can you know they have.
But we both know what the Bible has revealed to us.
quote:
But, frankly, FG, it would be silly to speculate that of the multiple millions who have never received the Gospel there were not those who believed a supreme Being created this world.
Of course there are many who di believe in a supreme Being. But, did they ignore that Truth, in the sense of NOT seeking Him actively? That is the issue, which you seem to miss. If they don't seek Him, He hasn't promised them that they will find Him. The promise is ONLY to those who seek God actively, as Cornelius clearly demonstrates.
quote:
quote:
quote:
LFW - means "that a person is fully able to perform some other action in place of the one that is actually done, and this is not predetermined by any prior circumstances, our desires or even our affections..... One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise. "
Does that about sum up your definition?
Not even close. No wonder most of the posts keep going over your heads. I would NEVER argue for that silly definition. Good, then it's time to close down the thread. It would appear then that the freewillers have been unable to articulate their beliefs.
More accurately, the calvinists have been unable to grasp the pov of FW.
How can you fail to understand my definition of FW as simply the freedom to choose between options? How difficult is that?
quote:
Are you now admitting that indeed God is the determining factor in your act of believing?
This clearly demonstrates my point that you have failed to grasp my pov. I've ALWAYS noted that it is God who makes evident His existence, which should lead one to seek Him. That is why man is without excuse for not seeking Him. If God hadn't made Himself evident, man WOULD have an excuse for not seeking Him. But, no man has an excuse.
quote:
That you did make your choice because of the determining influence of God?
Of course. And that is quite different thatn God causing me to believe.
quote:
Very odd, though, since especialy that last sentence(bolded above) "One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise" is straight from the freewiller's handbook.
Which book would that be?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2008 7:37:19 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6692
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Judas and the others who killed Christ chose to do exactly as they did; but, according to God, this "choice" of theirs was predetermined by God. So, their choice was definitely not free from God's predetermination.
Just be clear. Did God cause Judas and the others to do exactly as they did, or did He allow them to? Which is it you are claiming?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/22/2008 7:43:50 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
