Accountability

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Protestant, Jan 19, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    Am I the only board member who discerns the same Scriptures being debated endlessly again and again?

    How many times must Biblicist patiently and biblically refute the same persistent errors brought forth by the same insistent Arminian/Pelagian/Humanists?

    Let’s be honest. The Bible stresses man’s accountability for his sinful actions.

    The Bible also stresses God’s free grace which actually saves those He wills to save.

    Man is accountable to God, yet God is not accountable to man.

    “And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?”

    Arminians would have God accountable to man.

    Based on man’s ‘foreseen’ choices and decisions God then ordains the future, never overriding man’s will.

    In essence, Arminians teach man’s will is sacred and God dare not violate it.

    To do so is to rob the will of its divine attribute called ‘freedom of choice.’

    To rob the will of its divine ‘freedom of choice’ is to rob man of his divine ‘humanity.’

    To rob man of his divine ‘humanity’ is to make him nothing more than a puppet and robot deterministically ‘programmed’ to do his Master’s bidding.

    That bidding may entail the eternal pains of Hellfire or the eternal highs of Heaven.

    One never knows in which direction one’s fate is fixed.

    Furthermore, one cannot change his fate; try as desperately as he may.

    That, in the mind of the recalcitrant Arminian, is the God of Calvinism.

    But, alas, Christians who understand and defend the doctrines of grace have a very different understanding as to the nature of God, His attributes, His grace, as well as His freedom to do as He pleases on Earth as He does in Heaven.

    Let us also not forget the absolute deleterious, destructive effects of sin which our opponents make of little consequence due to the fictitious ‘enabling grace’ they claim which is given to all men equally.

    Must the reader be reminded that all of God’s eternal purposes (i.e., eternal decrees) have holy and most wise motives, though the outcomes may be different?

    Whether it be the condemnation of the reprobates judged for the sins they willingly and freely committed -- or the salvation of the Elect who do not deserve His mercy and compassion…….both have an equally holy and most wise motive and purpose in the will of God.

    In the former the motive and purpose is to judge those deserving of punishment to the praise of His glorious justice.

    In the latter the motive and purpose is to save from deserved punishment those He loves to the praise of His glorious grace.

    All men deserve justice.

    No man deserves grace.

    It is God alone who chooses the recipients of saving grace based on nothing deserving or ‘good’ in man.

    That is why the Bible teaches ‘salvation is of the Lord.’

    When properly understood there is no room for ‘boasting’ which many on this board have a propensity to do.
     
  2. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,376
    Likes Received:
    728
     
  3. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:
     
  4. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow...where to start...

    Let's take a little time to learn some facts:

    vs...

     
  5. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    and again...

    vs...

     
  6. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  8. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ehhhhhhh, set down for I hit you with my nanner!!!! LOL
     
  9. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Even though we may no longer be on the same side of the c/a debate, I still have an affinity for you, and the way you express yourself in your posts. :thumbs:

    Not bad for an arrogant jerk who used to know the truth, no?
     
  10. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you are calling me an "arrogant jerk" I agree completely.........I simply insist you add the caveat that I am an entertaining and sometimes witty one.

    If you are calling YOURSELF the "arrogant jerk", than you are wrong. Completely wrong. You have a wonderful Spirit and I envy it :flower:

    Even your new-found Calvinism will never take that from you :wavey:
     
  11. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,176
    Likes Received:
    610

    [​IMG]
     
  12. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wouldn't be the first time. :)
     
  13. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    For those who may not pick up on this intent:

    "Straw Man" is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated. -link
     
  14. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    No, one of our contemporairies(sp?) called me an arrogant jerk that used to know the truth. I wasn't calling you that. Sorry for the cornfusion.
     
  15. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Now, where's that box of matches at?
     
  16. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wasn't confused....I was just looking for an excuse to back-handedly say something nice to you. :thumbsup:

    What with your bein' an heretical Calmeenanist and what-not I ain't about to go at it all straightforwardly or nothin'..........Me own folk might think I done turned over too!!! So, I have to go about it all sneak-di-fyed-like. I was just spreadin' the luv desite your new-fangled Calmeenanisticism and sech.:wavey:
     
    #16 Inspector Javert, Jan 20, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 20, 2014
  17. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Willis, I owe you an apology, I did indeed call you an arrogant jerk. Here is where I did so.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2005738&postcount=23

    I just want to show you I am a man of my word. I honestly did not remember calling you that name, and in fact did several searches but could not find it. I did yet another search and finally found it.

    So, I apologize.
     
    #17 Winman, Jan 20, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 20, 2014
  18. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,376
    Likes Received:
    728
    here you go ITL...since you have come out of hiding...i saved my questions for you....


    Default another chance....
    In another thread that was closed...I asked ITL to respond biblically to these questions that arose. He might have wanted to respond, so I will offer him another chance here! feel free to participate scripturally....

    InTheLight

    hello ITL...let's see what is on your mind

    .
    ITL...can you name anything at all...that has come to pass, or that will come to pass...that is {not ordained of God} could you offer a biblical explanation of this how God is God, and yet...in your mind things happen outside of His control. be specific if you can.
    ITL.....are you saying that you are not one of God's elect?
    The way you post this indicates you see being elect of God as a dirty word, or something you can speak with contempt about.
    Are all , everyone, who believes by God given faith...ELECT..??
    Again...answer and offer some bible please..like here;

    1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ,

    according to the faith of God's elect,

    and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

    2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

    I enjoy this teaching and am thankful everyday for it...are you?
    Do you believe you are elect of God?

    If you can show where i make such a claim...post it. i do strive to know as much as i can know and have much to still learn.

    Is it possible you are trying to undermine me personally as if to dismiss what i post because we are not in agreement? Be a big boy and offer where you think i am in error,and offer scripture to demonstrate if I offer something defective....i will read and consider it..I will surely do that.

    Do you think it is just possible that you do not like the teaching itself..on an emotional level.So you think that by trying to portray me in such a way as you have done you think it will all just disappear? maybe think that over a bit more. ITL...offer whatever critique you want...i welcome it if it is meant to correct me.


    ok..let's once again look at your list here...
    Quote:
    God requires all to repent,
    Yes he does....
    30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:


    ITL....where does it say God has to save all men.he has not purposed to do so.That he saves any is His business.He has chosen to save all he can jstly save according to His Holy purpose.I trust God is doing just as he has Covenanted to do...Do you believe so...or do you find fault with God..Rom9

    14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
    you seem to indicate there is ITL
    15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

    16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

    ITL..could you speak to these verses and explain your understanding to me, rather than try to diminish me..based on your speculation on my character.

    Show me how these verses do not say what they clearly say on this matter as you find this idea .....not correct.
    .
    free will does not exist...so this starts on a wrong premise.
    ,
    The God of the bible declares himself to be...do you believe He is ITL, or do you think of a god who can only do what you approve of?


    Did Adam do it? or did God send angels to tie him down and force feed him?
    God gave Him his word and the certainty of what took place...Adam sinned.
    God did not sin.
    This whole let's blame God for Adams sin...comes 24/7 from those who turn from the biblically revealed truth.

    the context defines it to anyone who is honest about it.

    there are no contradictions...but there are many other misunderstandings.
     
    #18 Iconoclast, Jan 20, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 20, 2014
  19. Protestant

    Protestant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    63
    Your quote fails to provide your source material.

    Scholars always cite sources when referencing others.

    In your case I highly doubt you found the quote by reading the exhaustive works of Arminius for yourself.

    Rather you lifted the quote from a recent anti-Cal source....in which case to avoid 'boasting' of your scholarly methods you should cite both primary and secondary sources.

    Re: your 'fact'..... it proves the very point in question.

    Arminians, as well as Arminius, believe it is man's 'free will decision' which holds supreme authority in either accepting or rejecting the 'grace which is offered.'

    If man's will determines to accept the grace which is offered, then grace is his for the asking.

    If, however, man's will determines to reject the grace which is offered, then God respects and honors man's decision, never violating the will's freedom to reject.

    Contrary to the belief system of ALL Arminians and Arminius, Scripture teaches that unless the Spirit sovereignly and mercifully regenerates (makes alive in Christ) unbelieving, Christ-rejecting sinners, those sinners will remain dead in their sins and trespasses, ever continuing as willful God-haters and Satan worshippers, doomed to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire and Brimstone.

    Those Scriptures which prove the doctrines to which we hold have been repeatedly stated, re-stated, re-re-stated, as well as repeatedly demonstrated logically, grammatically, and contextually.
     
  20. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did cite the author and it was all that was needed to adequately demonstrate that your statement was an erroneous straw man. Which, no doubt is why you shift the attention from that fact to ad hominem by implying I'm not being scholarly enough to cite the full source or actually read Arminius' works myself. In fact, I have read most of Arminius' works, and Calvin's institutes as well, but this isn't about me. You'd like to make it about me because you don't want to deal with your error. .

    Fine, then make that argument, and provide a quote to support it, but that is not what you stated before. There is a huge difference in claiming that God has chosen to give man the authority over his willingness to accept or reject God's gracious provision and claiming that God 'never overrides man’s will because man’s will is sacred and God dare not violate it.' I think you know better, which is why you are shifting the argument to be about my citing of sources and now rewording your argument to be a bit more reasonable.

    I'm fine to debate you, but debate me, not your strawman...and no need to get personal. Oh, and if you REALLY wanted a citation there is a thing called 'google' where you can pretty much search for any quote and every citation you could ever want about that quote will come up. Hope that helps. :thumbsup:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...