Matt 7's "I never knew you" continued

If the hardening is in the form of sending someone like Moses time after time to the wicked giving them chance after chance to do the right thing -- then "sounds good to me".

in Christ,

Bob

 

GE:

Now how could this help anyone to understand salvation better -- or just half?

 

CCK : You said that only Calvinists say that the elect are saved . Well , well . Do you think the elect are not saved ? You would have to admit that only the elect are saved because only the people whose names are nscribed in the Lamb's Book Of Life will be saved . Any non-calvinist should be able to acknowledge that perfectly biblical fact .

In John 12:32 the drawing referred to is with respect to His own -- the gathering of the elect . The LORD died for only those who are drawn . John 6:37,39,44,65 delineates the drawn ones . Romans 8:30 refers to the very same group as well as many other Scriptures which could be cited .

The LORD saves some folks from every stripe -- every nation , tongue , gender and condition -- not each and every person who has ever lived upon the face of the earth .

 

GE:

I say Amen!

 

GE:

You have it, dear Bobbie, in my post 30 in this very thread. I am still busy on it, exposing you and your lies. You didn't see my post? Well, it's there. Let me see you answer it!

 

BobRyan, ‘quoting’ Calvin, continued:

… “merely by his sovereign will. ... he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name be glorified in their destruction. ....”.

Bob Ryan begins this section of his ‘quote’ with a small letter; one should think he continues from nearby his previous section. One should nevertheless start this sentence with a capital letter, “He (God) orders” k.t.l..

Where then, does one find this sentence located in this chapter of Calvin’s ‘Constitutions’? Nearby at least. And indeed so, it is found nearby, though not immediately in sequence with the aforesaid passage. It is found namely, one good page of in depth thinking of Calvin’s, further, in 23/3. With the context therefore represented by three dots, a true representation of Calvin’s intentions becomes all the more difficult. Unfortunately for example, Bob Ryan’s dotted omission leaves this conclusion to the first passage ‘quoted’ by Bob Ryan, out.

In 23/2 Calvin writes, “… everything which He (God) wills, must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of His willing it. Therefore, when it is asked why,the Lord did so, we must answer, Because, He, pleased. But if you proceed further,to ask why He pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the will of God, and nothing such can be found. Let human temerity then be quiet, and cease to inquire after what exists not, lest perhaps it fails to find what does exist (the righteous pleasure of God, namely, GE). … Against the audacity of the wicked, who hesitate not to blaspheme, God will sufficiently defend Himself by His own righteousness, without our assistance, when depriving their consciences of all means of evasion He shall hold them under conviction, and make them feel their guilt.”

Now this sufficiently explains those words so resented and protested against by Calvin’s enemies, “(God) orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his Name be glorified in their destruction. ....”

Calvin’s statement is so represented by his foes as if God, ordered and decreed some men to certain death. Although I do not differ with the net result of all implications and complications involved, that this so, this is not what Calvin said. God in the beginning told man, if he would eat of the tree, he would die – because he would have sinned. Since by one man death came over all men, all men born, are, sinners, and are born, sinners, “devoted from the womb to certain death”. Only for the grace of God some men like burning stumps are plucked from the fire.

Throughout, Calvin held to God’s Eternal Purpose, “That his Name be glorified in their destruction ....”. I find that ‘sublime’; Calvin’s enemies find that, offensive. Would God’s Name be glorified in the preservation of the Godless then? Then why blame God that His Name should be glorified in their destruction? Would the perpetuation of sin be the better option for God – better than His own will and pleasing, better than, “God’s order(ing) all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men, are born devoted from the womb to certain death”? (It is not God who – according to BobRyan – so ‘devotes some men’; it is they that themselves are thus devoted -- according to Calvin, by their sinful nature, "being born ...".)

We find ourselves still dealing with the first part of BR’s ‘quote’. We can now go on with his second quotation. (To follow)

 

Where then, does one find this sentence located in this chapter of Calvin’s ‘Constitutions’? Nearby at least. And indeed so, it is found nearby, though not immediately in sequence with the aforesaid passage. It is found namely, several good paragraphs of in depth thinking of Calvin’s, further, in 23/6. With the context therefore represented by three dots, a true representation of Calvin’s intentions becomes all the more difficult. Unfortunately for example, Bob Ryan’s dotted omission leaves this conclusion to the first passage ‘quoted’ by Bob Ryan, out.

In 23/2 Calvin writes, “… everything which He (God) wills, must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of His willing it. Therefore, when it is asked why,the Lord did so, we must answer, Because, He, pleased. But if you proceed further,to ask why He pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the will of God, and nothing such can be found. Let human temerity then be quiet, and cease to inquire after what exists not, lest perhaps it fails to find what does exist (the righteous pleasure of God, namely, GE). … Against the audacity of the wicked, who hesitate not to blaspheme, God will sufficiently defend Himself by His own righteousness, without our assistance, when depriving their consciences of all means of evasion He shall hold them under conviction, and make them feel their guilt.”

Now this sufficiently explains those words so resented and protested against by Calvin’s enemies, “(God) orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his Name be glorified in their destruction. ....” (23/6b)

Calvin’s statement is so represented by his foes as if God, ordered and decreed some men to certain death. Although I do not differ with the net result all implications and complications involved considered, that this is so, this is not what Calvin said.

(GE: God in the beginning told man, if he would eat of the tree, he would die – because he would have sinned. Since by one man death came over all men, all men born, are, sinners, and are born, sinners, “devoted from the womb to certain death”. Only for the grace of God some men like burning stumps are plucked from the fire.)

Throughout, Calvin held to God’s Eternal Purpose, “That his Name be glorified in their destruction ....”. I find that ‘sublime’; Calvin’s enemies find that, offensive. Would God’s Name be glorified in the preservation of the Godless then? Then why blame God that His Name should be glorified in their destruction? Would the perpetuation of sin be the better option for God – better than His own will and pleasing, better than, “God’s order(ing) all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men, are born devoted from the womb to certain death”?

It isn’t God who – according to Bob Ryan – so ‘devotes some men’; it is they –according to Calvin– that themselves, are thus devoted.

Beveridge renders this sentence from Paragraph 6,

“Since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to Him belongs the disposal of life and death, He arranges all things by His sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify Him by their destruction.”

Are not all men doomed from the womb to certain death having been born sinners and guilty, that is, “devoted to death”, through their own sinfulness? Is not death the wages of sin? Does not Paul say so? Then why blame Calvin as if he teaches the doctrine of devils, for saying only what the Word of God declares to be true and certain?

But we must find the context that Bob Ryan silenced with having left out at least three paragraphs in between 2 and 6, having given no indication of having done so, shrewdly pretending those initial malicious ‘quotes’ of his are of the same nature than Calvin’s statements in 6.

Calvin introduces our sentence of concern, saying, “All must admit that Solomon says, “The Lord has made all things for Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov16:4). Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God …”.

The enemies of OSAS and Calvin don’t fight him or his word; they fight God and His Word, by denouncing Calvin for teaching just this, that “The Lord has made the wicked for the day of evil.”

Unimaginable though it may seem they cannot go farther than that in their blasphemy, they in fact do. They decline the full Word that says “The Lord has made all things for Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil”. Has the Lord made “the day of evil”? – has He appointed the day of judgement? Or will the day per adventure turn up by itself, or will the Lord make it of His own will? Then do the wicked choose if they will meet that day or simply might by-pass it as if they could side-step God? Only because God willed it, only “He pleased to”, shall the wicked face the day of evil. The will of God from the beginning has destined them to it. They enter the judgment of condemnation not willingly, but because God willed that the reward of sin is death. The wicked by God’s choice have no choice; they “shall die”, in their sins. Only because “for Himself”, and only because it “pleased Him”, has the Lord made the day of evil and the evil for the day of evil.


… God chooses whom he will as his children ... while he rejects and reprobates others … to be continued.

 

GE (talking to himself nonstop) -- your post 25 and 30 are simply "you" talking to "you".

At what point do you post an ACTUAL LINK to something I posted on this thread???

(at the risk of disturbing your dialogue with you)

Your post 46.... "More of the same".

 

… God chooses whom he will as his children ... while he rejects and reprobates others … to be continued.

From par. 6 Bob Ryan jumps to par. 10, informing the reader with three dots without explanation. In whole he jumps from par. 2 to par. 10 as if quoting Calvin from a single paragraph. His dots appear to indicate perhaps a few words or sentences are left out, while in reality he has destroyed all relativity and context between ten paragraphs. “Where”, asked Bob Ryan? Here you did.

Worst is still to come; because these extracts are carefully selected. Whatever didn’t suit Bob Ryan, is just not made mention of … very selectively. Who might guess there actually was something besides that Calvin thought necessary to say so that these referred passages should be understood correctly, that bunch of Calvinist fools!? We have seen this underhand tactics of Bob Ryan in connection with his first ‘quote’. Now observe what Bob Ryan left unsaid once again. (But before that, I must make sure the reader will know this whole process of elimination of the unwanted, most likely wasn’t the work of Bob Ryan’s, but of another’s doing, that Bob Ryan just used, without permission, and without acknowledgement.
3/23/10 “First, the sense in which Scripture declares that God is not an acceptor of persons, is different from that which they (‘the adversaries of predestination’) suppose; since the term ‘person’ means not ‘man’, but those things which, when conspicuous in a man, either procure favour, grace and dignity, or, on the contrary, produce hatred, contempt, and disgrace. Among these are, on the one hand, riches, wealth, power, rank, office, country, beauty, &c.; and, on the other hand, poverty, want, mean birth, sordidness, contempt, and the like.
Thus Peter and Paul say, that the Lord is no acceptor of persons, because He makes no difference between the Jew and the Greek; does not make the mere circumstance of country the ground for rejecting one or embracing the other (Acts 10:34; Ro2:10; Gl3:28). Thus James also uses the same words, when he would declare that God has no respect to riches in his judgment (Jms2:5). Paul also says in another passage, that in judging God has no respect to slavery or freedom (Eph6:9; Col3:25). There is nothing inconsistent with this when we say, that God, according to the good pleasure of His will, without any regard to merit, elects those whom He chooses for sons, while He rejects and reprobates others.”

These last lines are Bob Ryan’s isolated and out of context, “… God chooses whom he will as his children ... while he rejects and reprobates others …”. Calvin stresses God’s impartiality; Bob Ryan makes Calvin make God a respecter of persons.

Clearly because the rest of Calvin’s argument for definite will prove the citator mischievous and petty – be it his ‘source’ or Bob Ryan himself – it is omitted entirely!
The ‘Institutions’ reads on,
For fuller satisfaction the matter may be thus explained (see August. Epist. 115, et ad Bonif., lib. ii. Cap. 7).
“It is asked, how it happens that of two, between whom there is no difference of merit, God in his election adopts the one, and passes by the other? I, in my turn, ask, Is there anything in him who is adopted to incline God towards him? If it must be admitted there is nothing, it will follow, that God looks not to the man, but is influenced entirely by His own goodness to do him good.”

Therefore, when God elects one and rejects another, it is owing not to any respect to the individual, but entirely to his own mercy, which is free to display and exert itself when and where He pleases. For we have elsewhere seen, that in order to humble the pride of the flesh, “not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called” (1Cor1:26); so far is God in the exercise of His favour from showing any respect to persons.”

What Calvin following says, he seems to have written especially for Bob Ryan,
“Wherefore it is false and most wicked to charge God with dispensing justice unequally, because in this predestination He does not observe the same course towards all.”

 

GE:

Like I expected your very best response.

Others do read both our posts. I supplied them the opportunity to read Calvin himself beside your corruption of him. I'm happy enough to know.

 

As usual this discussion has become an exercise in futility as you have those that make false accusations that no Scripture is given when it fact there has been TONS of Scripture given to support this view. The entirety of the Bible supports this view. Then you have the other group that can't defend their own beliefs so they just start making stuff up about what they want you to have said and refuse to deal in reality.

But even at that I wanted to address this one issue. I have asked you many times Steaver to visit with your brother, but you refuse to give me his contact information. I bet if I asked him about what you have posted he wouldn't agree with you, but that's neither here nor there.

The reason I wanted to post on this comment is to say the same exact thing happens with the other two groups. You "seem" to be an odd duck out of the row, but I bet you would fall into one of these two categories yourself if pressed enough.

And the two majority groups we have in Christendom sees the warnings given to believers and they come to the conclusion that Christians can be saved and then become unsaved. This would be Church of Christ, Free Will Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, ect.

Then you have the other group of people that say oh a saved person could never do something like that so these warnings are to unsaved people.

So what you have is one group of people solves the "bad" people question with they must have lost their salvation, while the other group says these "bad" people were never saved in the first place.

So to paint a picture of this doctrine trying to "solve" any problem is inaccurate and the same picture could be painted for both of the majority doctrines within Christendom.

Now if you don't fall into either of these two categories and you truly believe that there are "lazy," "bad" saved people and that their only suffering will be that they will be the least in the kingdom then what you are doing is giving yourself and the rest of Christendom a license to sin.

With your view there is absolutely no reason to deny self and follow Christ. Because your view says I can go to church on Sunday and live like the devil Monday-Saturday and I still get my piece of paradise pie. And while it may not be the biggest piece it is still paradise.

So why would I want to deny myself eating my cake when I can have it all. Your view says you can have all this world has to offer and paradise when you die.

That is a HUGE problem, mainly because Scripture says you can't. Your view says you can serve two masters, but Scripture says you have to choose.

 

As to your first post I have no reason to believe you are telling the truth. And at the same time I have no reason to believe you are not either. Again I find it very odd at best that someone that believes in the word of the kingdom would not want to visit with another brother or sister that believes this to be true. That would DEFINITELY be outside of the norm with others that I have found that hold to these Truths. Everyone that I have contacted has responded and was happy to find another brother that is believing and teaching according to Scripture.

And your line about them not wanting to talk about doctrine over the internet adds to my skeptisim because I would be on their side on this, not wanting to debate Scripture, but to exhort them and encourage them on in their race of the faith.

So again it is odd at best that your brother and his pastor wouldn't want to contact another believer and fellowship in the Truth of Scripture.

That's just my thoughts on the matter.

Everything that you have done in the flesh that gets burned up is sin. If its not of faith then it is sin. You can not operate in the flesh and it not be sin. That is a direct violation of what we are supposed to be doing. We are to be walking by the Spirit not by the flesh. So I don't see how you can say disobedience is not a sin.

All sin was not forgiven at the cross. Christ is currently acting as our High Priest and Mediator. If there was no need to deal with sin after eternal salvation is complete then there would be no need for a High Priest and Mediator. There would be no need for I John 1:9.

If we sow to the flesh we are going to reap corruption. If we so to the Spirit we will reap life. That IS a certainty.

And to say that the consequences of sin ends in this life is to be sorely mistaken.

That's good, but what if Joe Blow saved person says well that's good for you, but I want to do things my way. I want to cheat on my wife and when I get tired of her all together I'll just beat her her for a few months and then kick her out and go get a new wife that is younger and prettier.

What about Sally Sue that is well love may be enough for you, but I want to sleep with my boss so that I can get this big promotion at work.

I mean the possibilities are endless. How about John Business that says well love is okay for you, but I can save about $10,000 on my taxes if I just fudge over here a little bit and then over there a little bit.

The list is endless.

All of these "Christians" are going to be able to get away with all of these things and the only thing that they are going to have to face is mabye a shorter life on earth if their sin gets too bad or too outta hand and that means just quicker to glory and then in the end their piece of paradise is just a little smaller than the good folks.

Do you see how ABSURD this logic is. Again you are advocating a philosophy that says get all you can out of this world, because there are no "real" consequences other than your lot in paradise is going to be a little smaller.

It's no wonder people allow this doctrine to tickle their ears. You can live any ole way you want to.

At least the other folks realize that you can't just live life any ole way you choose. Choices have to be made and there are consequences for them all. Again I think both sides of the issue are unBiblical, but at least they are looking for a solution that is better than eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die and it's on to paradise.

 

Not sure of your comment here. This is either a personal attack or you don't understand what I'm saying.

Bob teaches a works-based eternal salvation message. I have NEVER not even once said eternal salvation is based on ANYTHING other than the finished works of Jesus Christ done on the behalf of the sinner and the sinner's faith in those finished works.

Faith that works only has to do with the 1,000-year kingdom, so there is no way you can lump me into a works-based salvation camp unless you believe the kingdom and eternal salvation are the same thing. And if that is what you believe then you really believe your eternal salvation is only 1000 years long. Not much of an eternal salvation .

See that's the difference between you and me. I do care, because we are told to care.

I don't know the "details" either, and I don't lose sleep either, but that doesn't have to equate in apathy.

Part of serving is knowing the purpose of why you serve. And this race that we are running has rules and boundaries and a prize at the end. What you have described is just running around aimlessly and hoping at the end you come out okay.

That's not the approach Scripture takes regarding the race of the faith.

 

Steaver:

OHM:

JJ, if you really believe that a Christian can spend 1000 years in torture, and if you believe that most Christians will miss the Kingdom (which I've seen you post this), and if you believe that you don't know if you will be in the Kingdom or lake of fire for 1000 years (I've seen you post this as well), then you should lose sleep because that is a terrifying doctrine that you teach.

 

Well you are not entirely accurate in your assessment Amy. I say I don't know for sure, because I can't say with 100% certainty that I will continue to believe and will continue to have a faith that works for the rest of my life.

As of right now I am believing and have a faith that is working so should I die right now or should the Lord return I will have a place in His coming kingdom. However that place is not guaranteed and if I live another 20 years or the Lord doesn't return that doesn't mean that at some point I won't stop believing or that I won't stop having a faith that works.

Hopefully that clears that up. And should I get to that point then yes there should be sleepless nights. However at this point that is not the case Thank God! With ALL seriousness!!!

 

The Holy Spirit has sealed me from the moment I placed my faith in Christ.

I cannot stop believing in Christ. I may disobey Him once in a while, but I will never stop believing in Him.

Because I am sealed by the Holy Spirit, I am Christ's. Because I have placed my faith in Christ, He has given me eternal life.

The gifts and calling of God are without repentance. I cannot lose my salvation.

 

See this is generally where these discussions end up when it all comes down to it. Well how far can I go? Well how close to the line can I get? I don't have a 100% answer for those types of questions.

Those aren't the types of questions we need to be asking anyway. We should be more concerned with well what does Scripture say I need to be doing. How close can I get away from that line?

As far as that goes the vast majority of the NT is written to answer just that. That is the rule book if you will for entrance into the kingdom.

A great picture of this truth is the book of Ruth. It shows the two types of Christans. One that doesn't want to go on the journey and turns back and one that makes the journey with Naomi. One becomes the wife of Boaz, typifying Christ, and the other doesn't.

If anyone is interested I can point you to a great couple of series on the book of Ruth.