Frustration over debate about Calvinism

I have always thought it amazing that two people can read the same scripture but arrive at different interpretations. I see Romans 9 as saying something entirely different from you.

Rom 9:15 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.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

You notice I highlighted "of the same lump" in verse 21. I think that is significant and almost always overlooked. What this is saying is that all men are created equal. God does not create one man to be saved, and create another to be lost. And if you closely examine these scriptures you will see that.

First, who is this passage speaking of? Pharoah of Egypt. Did not God give Pharoah numerous chances to repent and let the children of Israel go free?
With every plague Pharoah called for Moses and asked him to end the plague with the promise he would set the Hebrews free. And each time Moses through God did end the plague. But instead of Pharoah being thankful, as soon as he saw things were good again, he hardened his own heart and refused to set the Hebrews free.

Exo 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Who does this verse say hardened Pharoah's heart? Pharoah.

At one point Pharoah seemed to repent and admit his sin.

Exo 9:27 And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them, I have sinned this time: the LORD is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.

But Moses knew better and answered:

Exo 9:30 But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the LORD God.

And, exactly as Moses had predicted, once again Pharoah hardened his own heart.

Exo 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.
35 And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would he let the children of Israel go; as the LORD had spoken by Moses.

Again, we see that Pharoah himself hardened his own heart. And how could Pharoah sin if it was God's will that his heart be hardened? Pharoah would be doing the will of God.

What you fail to understand is that God knew from the beginning that Pharoah would resist him and NEVER repent.

Exo 3:19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.

So, that is important. God selected Pharoah to show his wrath. But this was not wrong. He did not cause Pharoah to be proud and stubborn, but he knew beforehand that Pharoah would never listen. So Pharoah was fit for destruction by his own sin.

God does not destroy the innocent. But God brings justice on those who refuse to repent.

 

Simple brother, they ALL state that regeneration is a logical conclusion. Yes, they all state certain things about how they see regeneration working in relation to salvation however not one of them that I know of states it is or can be biblically shown as a chronological order and therefore they 'all' state it is a logical order. I didn't say they did not or could not show 'why' they see it as logical based upon their theological view. And thus they all state regeneration precedes faith as a logical conclusion.

 

Bob,

You are a real hoot. Every time I debate with you, you make me laugh. You change subjects and say anything we wish. Funny guy you are.


The 1st post was this.... (please notice that your whole point was to show me how much you knew about Calvinism. Cause after all....YOU were once a Calvinist.)

I replied about the confrontation...

You replied.....

I post a bunch a Calvinst that SHOW you have not a clue what Calvinist believe...
I saw the NOTHING ELSE and showed you were wrong.

LINK..

Bob replied...

Again Bob....Your whole POINT was based on what you FELT Calvinist believe. State it another way if you want something address, but Bro...or as you say...dude your base is crushed.

AND>>>>BTW

They did not agree wth you Bob. They agreed with me and you even said so in your last post. Please stay focused.

 

I mainly saw this one line added....
Allan...
"this view that this is not something that can be proven 'biblically'.
You don't feel these men have used the Bible to build their case? Now you may disagree with how they use the verses, but it is based on scripture.

Peace....

Have a good Lords day

 

lets just focus on your KEY words.

same lump...

All of mankind comes from this same lump. I agree that is the point. Now what follows?

a make.....

Who is making? It is God that is making. Yes he is making from the same lump. What is next?

one vessel unto honour......

God makes one vessel unto honour. All from the same lump...but only some GOD makes to honour.

And what about the rest of the lump?

and another unto dishonour

From the same lump....God makes another UNTO dishonour.

I need not say more.


*************

I'll talk to you later about Pharoah. But you are right...it is not wrong.

 

Dude, try to focus. My central point was that no external maniputlation would get someone to believe, according to C theology. External manipulation without prior regeneration results in nothing, according to C theology. I'm sorry to have to teach you C theology here in public, rather than over a cup of coffee, being that you claim to know C theology, and even quote it to me without absorbing what you spent so much time quoting. If only those theologians you quoted could get their teachings into your head. The events on the road to Damacus did not result in Paul being saved, according to C theology.

Yet you keep making my very point that the example better supports non-C theology, without knowing it. Of course God had to confront Paul in that way to get him to come around. God wants him to preach to the Gentiles, so God wants him to believe. Since God does not irresistibly regenerate unbelievers, God confronts Paul on the road to Damacus.

If only Hodge or Calvin where here to help me teach you Reformed theology. Sheeesh!

 

I notice no one replied to my post #54.

Obviously, it's a question that can't be answered or it's relevance to the discussion isn't known.

Either way, it shows an ignorance as to how the plan of salvation works.


So, Let me ask, did Jesus's death take away "SIN" or the "LAW" ???


And if God was serious, why wasn't his "effectual calling",...."effectual"????

Ro 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

 

Not only that, but why in the world would Paul say that he is attempting to use envy to save Israel?

I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

What difference does envy make in the salvation of unbelievers in Reformed theology? None. It just makes for a more interesting story.

I know what difference it makes in non-Reformed theology. It makes a real difference.

 

Simply saying that you believe in depravity, election, atonement etc. does not equate with being at unanimity with Calvinists on those doctrines. Even Roman Catholics could affirm that they believe in those items without the necessary qualifications. Each one needs to be fleshed-out.

The fact is that you do not agree with Calvinists on depravity,election and atonement. You have shown that you object to the Calvinistic (i.e. scriptural view) countless times.

They match-up about as much as Phil Johnson's and Monergism's lists regarding Hyper-Calvinism -- in other words -- no correspondence.

 

Here's the way I see it. If God "forces"(as some have used this word) to be saved and serve him, where is the glory? It's kinda like the men who get their dates drunk and/or doped up, and then fornicate with them and then brag about sleeping with that girl. After the booze and/or dope hits her nervous system, she had NO CHOICE in the matter(I hope and pray this analogy doesn't offend anyone, btw).

God told Adam and Eve in the garden what they could and could not eat, but they chose to eat of the tree of good and evil....no where have I read they were "forced", "coerced", "begged", etc, but Eve, by being deceived by Satan, CHOSE to eat, and when she presented it to Adam, he CHOSE to eat, too. The "Call" belongs to God(Election), and those whose CHOOSE to answer(the ELECT), will be saved(IOW, the "response" belongs to us). But, the "call" will go to all who come to know God as God, and glorify Him not as God, and those who know to doeth good and doeth not, to him is sin. Romans 5:6 states that when we were yet without strength, Christ died for the UNGODLY. That sounds like ALL MANKIND, because ALL have SINNED and CAME SHORT of the glory of God.

Another thing to chew on: When Jesus looked over Jerusalem and wept, He said how He would have gathered you(Jews) together as a hen gathered her brood, but YE WOULD NOT. IOW, the Jews openly rejected Him as Messiah. He did not once force himself on anyone. The woman with the issue of blood, blind Bartamaues(sp?), Legion, Jairus, Zaccheus, all came to Jesus FIRST, and only when they heard He was coming(Election). After they came towards Him, He then healed them. Jesus didn't force Himself on anyone while He was here on earth, nor does He now while sitting on the right hand of God. One more thing, the rich young ruler who walked away from Jesus sorrowful, the scriptures stated that Jesus beheld him, and loved him.......He didn't force him to serve Him. When the call comes to an individual, the reponse(choice) falls squarely on him.

Willis

 

It can be answered, and it is irrelevant.

Both, but in different ways.

He took away sin in that he bores its guilt (liability to punishment) and its punishment. There are many verses that talk about this, but here are a couple:
1 PEter 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
Heb 9:26 but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

He abolished the Law in that it is no longer a ruling power. Again many verses, but here is one.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Again, I think we are seeing that you don't understand the Bible on these issues. And it's pretty clear.

What makes you think that was the effectual calling?

 

Here's the problem: This is the way you see it. But what really matters is not how you see it but what God says about it.

Your hope and prayer doesn't work well because that is extremely offensive. It seems blasphemous to me to liken the gracious work of God to a man getting a girl drunk to rape her. I don't understand how you as a professing believer can even come up with an analogy like that, much less think it's accurate, much less think it is appropriate to say out loud. And then you want people to take your comments seriously?

 

To tell you the truth sir, I hardly read your post anymore. I find that most of the time, its not on subject. If the thread is still open tomorrow and if it is on the subject, I will read that one post and reply. I don't have time just now.

 

"To get him to come around" is not exactly a scriptural way to describe Paul's remarkable conversion.

"God wants him to believe" is very substandard phraselogy on your part. Remember that God is Sovereign. And you actually claim to have been a Calvinist?!

God gets those He so desires. The ones He wants are the ones He chose before the foundation of the world. By His effectual grace the Father draws them and gives them to Jesus.

More contemporary authors such as Warfield,Pink, Hoeksema, and Packer can set you straight BB. You apparently get lost in works more than one hundred years old.

Stop with the minced oaths. It's getting tiresome.

 

Does it trouble you that this ideas are not based on what the Bible says?

 

The Bible is clear that a man has his own will and choice.

Lev 1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

Lev 19:5 And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will.

Lev 22:19 Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats.

Lev 22:29 And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the LORD, offer it at your own will.

All these verses show that a man has a voluntary will of his own, and can choose to offer a sacrifice or not.

Psa 143:10 Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God: thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness.

Why would one need to be taught to do the will of God if it is irresistable?

Matt 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Why are we instructed to pray that God's will be done if it is irresistable?

Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Only those that doeth the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of heaven. So obviously there are those that do not the will of the Father.

Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

This verse shows a man can know God's will and disobey it.

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

This shows a man has a choice whether to do God's will or not.

1 Jn 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Those that dothe the will of God abideth forever, so obviously those who do not perish.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

A man can resist the Holy Spirit.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

A man can resist the power, which vs 1 shows all power is of God, they can resist God's ordinances. These men shall receive to themselves damnation.

2 Tim 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

These men resist the truth of God.


So, to teach that men do not have their own individual wills and cannot disobey God's will is completely unscriptural.

 

At least you're getting down to discussing the "meat of the word". :thumbs:

The law requires a "death for sin", Jesus "FULLED FILLED" that "LAW", not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the "WHOLE WORLD",

Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death;

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation (substitute death)for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

So how do you make Jesus's death a "LIMITED ATONEMENT"??

Jesus didn't take sin away, Jesus took the law away that we "MIGHT BE" saved without having to die for our sins as the law requires.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

God didn't sent Jesus to condemn the world but that the world through Jesus "MIGHT BE" saved.

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Post 54 asked what was the common denominator, it's the "crucifying of the flesh", or "body of sin",

Before our sin in "taken out of the way" we have to be "WILLING" to sacrifice the "LIFE OF THE FLESH/BLOOD" as Jesus was "WILLING",

Mr 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? (Conform to his image)

Nobody took Jesus's life, he laid it down of his own free will, so do we,

"IF" we are "WILLING" to sacrifice the body of sin, God will save, if not, he won't save,

But under no conditions will God "FORCE" us to make that sacrifice.

Ro 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,

Read Leviticus 16

"ATONEMENT" wasn't "COMPLETE" until "TWO GOATS", "Scapegoat/Jesus", and "Goat for the people"/body of sin", were sacrificed.

Either sacrifice, by its self, will not make atonement, God require both "Goats",

The reason Jesus can sacrifice his goat for the sins of the whole world, but the whole world is not "WILLING" to sacrifice their goat.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;

During the Trib, as "Chastisment", people will "literally" sacrifice their "body of sin" to be saved, (physically die) this is the "Stripes" in their flesh for rejecting Jesus.

The plan of salvation doesn't change.

Do you doubt God was serious in trying to get them to take his hand???

 

A "Wise man" will understand his opponents argument, better than his opponent.

I can appreciate the:

I don't have time just now.

I'm considering coming out of retirement and going back to work just to get some rest.