Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Jordan Kurecki, Dec 11, 2013.
Let us take these "camels" on at a time and see if they are really what this author claims them to be:
1. Christ weeping over jerusalem. Two facts, He would gather them under his wings, however they "would not" indicative of their fallen nature and its response to light - Rom. 8:7.
2. Israel limiting God. Israel limited God's revealed will to bless them by rebelling against His word. They did not limit his sovereign purpose whereby he works all things for its ultimate completion (Isa. 46:9-10).
3. Lost men refuse God's stretched out arms: Yes, this is the only response of the fallen nature - Rom. 3:10-18; 7:18-20; 8:7-8. However, the effectual call never fails in saving the lost - Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Cor. 1:26-31.
4. Acts 7:51 - this illustrates the one and only kind of response by fallen men to the Holy Spirit. However, when the gospel comes in power an in the holy Spirit rather than in "word only" they are always saved (1 Cor. 1:26-31; Rom. 8:28-30. This is the difference between the general and effectual call.
5. 1 Thes. 2:14-16 - of course sinners bring wrath upon themselves. God is not the author of sin. Neither does God force them to sin. Their fallen nature is the source of sin and thus the just basis for wrath.
6. Heb. 10:29 - This does not teach saved and then lost. There are two kinds of offerings in consideration. There is the daily tresspass offering and there is the Leviticus once a year offering. The former has to do with your daily life and maintaing daily fellowship with God. Confessing your sins but willfully continuing in those sense invalidates the daily offering and its type - daily cleansing. However, in Hebrews 10:1-17 we have the once a year offering which has for its antitype the once for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross which sanctifies us "once for all" and obtains entrance into heaven.
7. Matthew 11 - Notice that Jesus said that if God gave sodom and Gomorah the same light that was given to these cities they would have repented. God knew that and chose not to give them that light. So your problem still exists with this text - God chose not give what he knew would bring them to repentance.
This is suffienct to show this man simply does not know what he is talking about. His other arguments are just as baseless.
Those who refute the Doctrine of Grace and the Sovereignty and Supremacy of God in all things cannot look past their own ignorance.
The Scriptures, OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT, were not written for the benefit of all humanity. It was written for the benefit, instruction, and comfort of God's people, and only His people.
If God applies irresistible grace, He applies it to those for whom He designed such grace to be beneficial.
If God works in anyone to do and to will of His own good pleasure, He works in those whom He loved and foreknew from the foundation of the world.
If there are those with true choices at all between a new nature and an old nature, they are those in whom God had ADDED a new nature.
If there are obedient ones, these are those who have so immersed themselves in the Scriptures, they READ what God's will is for them through these Scriptures and obey.
If there are those who are disobedient, these are those who go with their old nature rather than their new. check out Paul's own statements, Romans.
Those whose names are not in the Lamb's Book of Life will not believe in the Name of the Son of God, but would rather believe in the anti-Christ because their names have never been inscribed in God's mind, and so they are already damned, from the get-go, from the foundation of the world.
The white, likely-tall, likely-blonde and blue-eyed, natural-born English speaking author of that article Jordan attached (or was that maybe Jordan himself) is no different than the flat-nosed, short, brown-skinned, straight-haired, broken-English-speaking, president of the Bible College I graduated from.
They both toe the pope-ulist line that God wants all humankind saved and so the Scriptures are to be interpreted as something addressed to mankind.
They claim to have investigated the Doctrine of Grace and found it inferior to what their seminaries taught them.
Exactly. I knew something was missing in the Bible training I received. It was the truth. These short quips 'God is Sovereign I tell ya!' and 'I believe in election' were stated by these preachers in chapel and professors yet it went no further nor was it ever explored. Then they'd preach this whole world salvation nonsense. Heard a feller on the radio a while back and he said when the church get's right with God then the whole world will be saved, and they all said amen. Ridiculous. And people believe this lie and claim to be sola scriptura. :banghead:
Listen to this (Galatians 1:8) : But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
I'm bewildered how these can study for years and never come to a better understanding. I've heard them repudiate election with 'We are not supposed to know that, I don't meddle in things too high for me!' (Yanking Psalm 139:6 as a proof text out of context).
So let's look at that sorry excuse: 'They don't meddle in things too high for them'. Hmmm. Really?
Paul taught election to the Corinthians, see 1:26ff, then in chapter 3 he tells them he has only fed them up to that point with MILK. So, here we have it, we have professors, pastors, teachers, evangelists who refuse to look at this, that won't meddle with things 'too high for them', therefore they refuse even the MILK of the word. It's saddening really. And then they're teaching others? No wonder so many Baptists I meet (and many others) have such a shallow understanding of Scripture and get bored with church. Is it any wonder? :BangHead: