All attributes of God

HERE'S THE LINK </font>[/QUOTE]Pretty interesting - but like proving to a Catholic that Purgatory is totally bogus - or that Christ is the ONE and ONLY mediator between God and man -- it is impossible to convince people like the one at that link of sound Bible doctrine once they have tossed it out the window.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Look for yourself at the Calvinist texts posted on this point so far.

Until you are willing to deal with the "details" of the argument - simply railing back saying that you "don't like the fact" that the flaw is exposed does not form a compelling response.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Read Romans 2 and Matt 7 it is spelled out "in detail" in those chapters. Romans 2 gives BOTH the succeeding case AND the failing case. Daniel 7 simply points out that those who succeed have "judgment passed in their favor".

God's future judgment uses the Rule of Christ in Matt 7 according to Romans 2. I can't change that though you seem to want to ignore it.

If a person has truly been born again and chooses to remain "IN CHRIST" then the tree is "good" and the fruit of the tree is "good" as Christ points out in Matt 7. His statement "by their fruits you shall know them" Matt 7 is in perfect harmony with His statement "NOT everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven..." Matt 7.

1John 2 makes the case that the one who does not WALK as Christ walked - and yet claims to know Christ -- is a liar.

Paul argues in Philipians 3 that we should OBSERVE all who WALK as HE walked and mark those who DON't as they are in fact in error.

Christ said that it is NOT everyone who "SAYS Lord Lord that ENTERs the Kingdom of heaven but rather he who DOES the will of My Father" Matt 7.

Paul said "IT is not the HEARERS of the Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS of the Law WILL BE JUSTIFIED" Romans 2:11-14.

The case for this in scripture is myriad.

In 1Cor 6 Paul gives a huge list of WALKING in sin and then adds "DO NOT be DECEIVED, those who PRACTICE such things DO NOT inherit eternal life".

As I said - the list is huge, I would hardly present it all here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ray, This is another point where we differ. I know of no statement that would say that the "evil deeds" mentioned in 2Cor 5:10 will receive the "reward of eternal life". Nothing in the text tells us that the failing case is not in fact - utterly failing. Certainly the chapter gives us great hope about the succeeding case - but no good "news" is given for "evil deeds".

In Romans 2:4-16 the case is made "in detail" by Paul on this "evil deeds vs good deeds" comparison in the future judgment that we see briefly mentioned in 2Cor 5 regarding the future judgment.

I am convinced that in Romans 2 Paul is presenting the subject of the future judgment in great detail - while in 2 Cor 5 10 he mentions it only briefly.

However - once you connect the dots the meaning is pretty clear.

In Christ,

Bob

 

duplicate

 

Bob,

Thanks for your response.

II Corinthians 5:10 uses an interesting word as it closes off the verse. {Foulon} Dr. Strong in his concordance says that it means, 'coming from a primitive word, suggesting 'foul, flawy, wicked or evil.

As I read this I get the idea that not everyone going to Heaven is going to be flawless and completely holy. Yes, they will be holy through the atonement, but each of us will be evaluated for the wrong things we might have done. That is why we need to keep short accounts with the Lord. We need to confess our sins.

Also notice not everyone in I John 2:28 was perfectly holy. Some will apparently be ashamed.

Do you think this explanation explains anything?

Ray

 

Give me a verse from the Bible saying that election and wrath are arbitrary, and then I'll read the rest of what you have to say. </font>[/QUOTE]Is this where I give you "the text" from Spurgeon? OR where you thinking that the BIBLE said something like that?</font>[/QUOTE]I'm talking about the Bible. The statement to which I was responding says Calvinism seeks to show God "revealing Himself " in arbitrary wrath vs. arbitrary selection.

The Bible talks about God's election, and God's wrath. Calvinism talks about God's election and God's wrath. If anyone is going to add "arbitrary" to the process, I want to see where they get their Biblical support for it. Or, if they are going to simply claim that Calvinists say "arbitrary", then give me support from statements of Calvinists like Spurgeon.

The bottom line: Don't lie about what the Bible says or what Calvinists say. If Calvinists do not claim the process of election and wrath is arbitrary, don't accuse them of saying it, or else you are bearing false witness against Calvinists.

 

Well - #1. Calvinism isn't biblical so I can't help you there.

#2. IF the Calvinist position is that SOMETHING ABOUT YOU determines if you are in the FEW of Matt 7 vs the MANY of Matt 7 -- then I have not heard about it. IN FACT read the quote from Spurgeon in the ELECTION thread - there HE shows you that there is NO difference IN THE PERSON between the saved and the lost. It is purely arbitrary - you can not point to even one single attribute OF the person NOR can you argue that God selects them because "of something they WILL do that the other person WON't do once saved".

This idea in Calvinism is in fact the perfect poster child for "Abitrary". I am just stating the obvious. We already saw Spurgeon spell it out for us...

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1148.html#000000

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Be honest for once. Please, I know you can do it.

Calvinists don't claim to know why God elects one and not another. God has not revealed why He has elected one and not another. To you, that may seem arbitrary. But that's a word YOU have added according to your viewpoint and opinion.

The Bible says no such thing, though. It says "those He foreknew, He predestined", not "those who happened to get the correct roll of the dice, He predestined". WHY He foreknew one and not another is not something God reveals in the Bible. Since God has not revealed this to you, you have no right to put words in God's mouth and claim that the difference is purely arbitrary.

 

Why all the debate about saying God is arbitrary doesn't that word just mean, "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference." I always thought of arbitrary as being someone making a decision without anyone else's counsel or input or without any stated reason. Isn't that exactly what God has done? Who would God get counsel from anyway and why would He need to give us reasons for all his judgements? God seems pretty arbitrary to me, but for God that seems to be ok. Kinda like jealousy. It ok for God but for the rest of us it's sin. Right?

 

npetreley,

Your statement is a false premise.

You said, 'Calvinists don't claim to know why God elects one and not another.'

It too bad for you folks who posit all your hopes and thoughts on the theory of friar John Calvin.

Jesus does not choose one sinner over another and, therefore, does not need a means to do these things.

 

Okay, then, quote Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Spurgeon on the criteria God uses to choose the elect (other than that He foreknew them, which is as much as the Bible tells us). Then we'll see if it's a false premise or not.

 

Almost true. As Spurgeon's example points out - Calvinsts DO claim to know that there is NOTHING you can point to ABOUT That PERSON that determines that they should be "elect".

I think that is pretty obvious - OR do you have Spurgeon saying something to the contrary?

No?

I didn't think so.

Basically it is MORE than just "I don't know why God picked Joe" it is "I DO KNOW that it is NOT BECAUSE of anything IN Joe or ABOUT Joe - rather it is PURELY God's Choice totally ABSENT any attribute or quality about JOE".

We all know this is the clear statement of Calvinism on this point - it does no good to run around on that as if it is not plain and obvious in Calvinism.

The definition of election as "arbitrary selection" is just a reference to the adamant point in Calvinism that we MUST NOT think that there is some QUALITY about Joe that makes him ELECT and Mike not elect.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That's like saying that you don't know what criteria a sushi chef uses to pick one piece of tuna over another. It doesn't mean there isn't a criteria, it just says you don't know what it is.

Likewise, Calvinists don't know why God foreknows one and not another. But that doesn't mean the process is arbitrary. That's a conclusion YOU may draw, but it is not one that is supported by Calvinists or the Bible. So to claim that Calvinists say the choice is arbitrary is simply a lie, and bearing false witness against a group of people.

Under normal circumstances, that would call for an apology. But we're talking about a group of people who have so deceived themselves into thinking that words like "whosoever" mean things they don't mean that I don't expect such an apology from anyone of you. You're too far gone.

 

Does God in using the word, 'world' in I John 4:14 suggest the dirt, stone, lava, moisture and minerals of the earth, or is the Lord speaking to the issue of the Savior for a world of sinnrs?

'And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.'

Those who believe will be saved and those who ignore Jesus will be lost. [Mark 16:16] The sinner navigates his or her own soul.

 

Bob said

Wrong. It is like saying that you DO know that the chef DID not make his choice based on ANY attribute of the tuna. Not size, not shape, not taste, not texture, not place of birth, etc.

Calvinists are adamant that none of the above serves as a basis for being "selected".

So your claim that they ONLY say "They have no clue" is not true. Because they DO insist that they KNOW it is not choice, not ability, not skill, not family relationship, not future ability, not inner goodness -- NOTHING about the person is allowed as "the selector" within Calvinism... Do you deny this??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

You know something else that is interesting about this is that sense God doesn't select people based upon family or place of birth etc that most believers are from a certain kind of family and born in certain places? That would seem to be more consistant with a doctrine that believed outward influences could effect the will of man, whereas a more "arbitrary" choice would seem to be more equally dispursed. But that is mere speculation I admit.

 

True enough - unless God was "arbitrarily selecting" some countries and not others --

However I think the obvious point is that even in Calvinism -- if you claim that "something about you" caused God to choose you over your brother -- it denies the entire premise in Spurgeon's presentation quoted here.

In Christ,

Bob