Questions for Calvinists

It might appear that the male proponents of Whitefield's beliefs may have been called away.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by billwald
Anyway, I'm a Christian, not a Paulist.
Nor, I imagine, are you a "Moses-ist", a "Davidist", an "Isaiah-ist", a "Matthew-ist", or an "Any-Other-Human-Author-of-a-Book-of-the-Bible-ist". Surely you are not saying that you don't believe those parts of the New Testament written by Paul?

I say that Some Christians think that the Church started with St Paul. I say the Church started before Genesis 1. I say the people who lived with Jesus during his ministry probably had a better idea of his teaching than St Paul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billwald
Can you construct your Gospel from the Gospels, James, and John?
Sorry, I am probably being more dense than usual , but why should anyone want to "construct" a gospel? And why should they do so based on only part of the bible?

Because there are over 100 Christian denominations. If there was only one authentic gospel then 99% are wrong.

Me, I take the ecumenical creeds as the authentic gospel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billwald
Anyway, Paul probably didn't write the Pastorals and Hebrews.
Well, 1 Timothy begins:
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope, 2 To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Likewise, 2 Timothy:
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, 2 To Timothy, a beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
And Titus 1.1 & 4:
1 Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, 4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.
I would agree that we are not told who wrote Hebrews.

I confess that I am not a fan of Paul's for historical reasons. Acts teaches that the Jerusalem Church governed Christianity. Paul was tolerated as long as he stayed out of Jerusalem. In 70 AD the Jerusalem Church was destroyed and Paul's gentiles assumed control of the Church and changed the gospel.

Further, a chronological reading of the letters attributed to Paul indicate the "real" Paul organized his churches bottom up and women had equal standing. The fake Paul taught top down control and the women kept their mouths shut.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billwald
Galatians is poor writing and I don't know how anyone can develop doctrine from it. Paul's writing is like hearing one half of a telephone conversation. It doesn't make without knowing the other half of the conversation.
I hope I have misunderstood you, and that you are not really saying what it appears to me you are saying: "I (Bill Wald) believe that I have the ability and the right to judge what God has put in His Word, and I further believe that at least one of the 66 books, Galatians, cannot be understood by Christians today." Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you - if that is the case perhaps you could tell me what you did mean. Thanks.

I think Paul's letters have been misinterpreted by people who have an agenda of controlling the Church. And yes, I would not submit a "Galatians" quality paper as a school paper or for publication.

 

>Well, 1 Timothy begins:
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope, 2 To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Likewise, 2 Timothy:
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, 2 To Timothy, a beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
And Titus 1.1 & 4:
1 Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, 4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.
--------------------
In those days it was common and acceptable for a disciple to write in (under) the name of his deceased guru.

 

"Born again" is used only twice in the Bible, John 3 and 1 Peter 1:23:
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nico asked Jesus a clear question and Jesus responded with a koan.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Was Nico ignorant? No, he had never heard the phrase.

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

A new teaching that does not conflict with Torah.

8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

In other words, being "born again" is something that the Holy Spirit does to a person, not something that a person does for himself.


9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Another koan and a new teaching.

11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

AKA post regeneration conversion.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

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

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

He believes because he is regenerate.

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 

>>Because there are over 100 Christian denominations. If there was only one authentic gospel then 99% are wrong.
Me, I take the ecumenical creeds as the authentic gospel.

>My reply: I am not sure at all what you are asking of me. Try to explain it again, then maybe we can proceed.

I think the basics of the Gospel can be constructed from the Gospels. If Paul had never been born . . . Jesus would have still been crucified for the sins of the world and still have rose from the grave for our justification. The Gospel would not have changed. My challenge to you is the teach me the Gospel without referring to Paul.


>>You said: Anyway, Paul probably didn't write the Pastorals and Hebrews.
Well, 1 Timothy begins:
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope, 2 To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Likewise, 2 Timothy:
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, 2 To Timothy, a beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
And Titus 1.1 & 4:
1 Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, 4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.
I would agree that we are not told who wrote Hebrews.

>My reply: Do you recognize that it is still the written Word of God?

I believe that the Bible as we have it is sufficient for faith and practice. I do not believe it is inerrant in all matters of history and science.


>>You said: I confess that I am not a fan of Paul's for historical reasons. Acts teaches that the Jerusalem Church governed Christianity. Paul was tolerated as long as he stayed out of Jerusalem. In 70 AD the Jerusalem Church was destroyed and Paul's gentiles assumed control of the Church and changed the gospel. Further, a chronological reading of the letters attributed to Paul indicate the "real" Paul organized his churches bottom up and women had equal standing. The fake Paul taught top down control and the women kept their mouths shut.
Galatians is poor writing and I don't know how anyone can develop doctrine from it. Paul's writing is like hearing one half of a telephone conversation. It doesn't make without knowing the other half of the conversation.

>My reply: What kind of doctrines do you think people make from Galatians that should not be?

Off hand, none. I don't think there are any (life and death, make or break) doctrines that are unique to Galatians.


>>You said: I hope I have misunderstood you, and that you are not really saying what it appears to me you are saying: "I (Bill Wald) believe that I have the ability and the right to judge what God has put in His Word, and I further believe that at least one of the 66 books, Galatians, cannot be understood by Christians today." Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you - if that is the case perhaps you could tell me what you did mean. Thanks.

>My reply: I do not exactly know what you are saying. What exactly did I say, or what do you think I said? As for what you said about Galatians, I believe you are wrong. Just because you cannot understand something, that does not mean no one can.

Let us agree to disagree in peace.

Math has always been my weak point but I have been reading several books about the recent history of math. The latest by Michio Kaku. Every book starts our and ends well written but at the start it seems to make sense. Later chapters build on earlier material but all of a sudden I realize I don't understand a word I am reading. So I google the words I have been reading and I don't understand any of it.

In other words, like reading theology. I read the Bible front to back and it all makes sense as written. I've probably read 50,000 or 100,000 pages of bible commentary and systematic theologies. I have met with Plymouth Brethern and know the history of John Nelson Darby who invented Dispensational theology in the middle 1800's. It is NOT exactly the Gospel. The clearest and most logical systematic theologian I have read is John Calvin and the clearest and most logical NT commentary I have read is R. C. H. Lensky - every word of every volume.

 

looks like this applies to you.you are not really asking questions to learn...but to resist. you have not made your case.


[QUOTEYou said: 4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

My reply: The PLAN was predestined, for us to have access to salvation through faith.
][/QUOTE]
No...this is completely unbiblical.....God chose the elect in Christ before the world was...he did not choose a plan..he chose people,
lets see which view is biblically taught here;
28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
this is speaking of people..not a plan
29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
it does not say a plan was foreknown...it says for WHOM...that again is people 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Again..WHOM and THEM...not a plan...this error is common as non cals do not understand the word foreknow correctly.your next error ;

Calvin did not teach this to Nicodemas...Jesus did....

Except a man be Born from above...HE CANNOT enter......you say he can..before being born from above

you say it is no where taught.....it is all over the Bible...salvation is all of God. If any man have not the Spirit of God he is none of His.

next error;

You cannot learn of Jesus unless drawn of the Father by the Spirit..this verse shows how it happens. Individuals are chosen of the God from the beginning...not a plan....
Moriah...I can show verses..but if you do not understand what you are reading...you do not have the verses:thumbs:

now you repeat your error;

No...here is why

God's election and ordination comes first...who believed?
AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED
it does not say as you keep saying;
AS MANY AS BELIEVED WERE ORDAINED TO LIFE
You have it backwards denying the truth of God.
next error;

No God says he looked down from heaven to see if there were Any who seek God 2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Moriah...can you see how in your desire to dis-prove the truth of grace..you are in constant error?

Moriah...you do understand that Jesus is God...don't you???you said this;

 

Icon,

You're correct in the manner in which you address Moriah, as yes, his error begets error, and so on. We see when a theology is corrupt, the children it begets are born with the same disease, but each child thereafter becomes moreso. Paul warns of such types, yet these cannot see the error of their way, 2 Timothy 2:13.

I stated, a little before, in what respect they shall grow worse and worse; for he foretells not only that they will make obstinate resistance, but that they will succeed in injuring and corrupting others. One worthless person will always be more effectual in destroying, than ten faithful teachers in building, though they labor with all their might. Nor are there ever wanting the tares which Satan sows for injuring the pure corn; and even when we think that false prophets are driven away, others continually spring up in other directions. - John Calvin

To Moriah, you falsely accuse EWF. No one has stated, nor have any implied that one cannot debate the words of George Whitefield. Rather, EWF has made invitation to both read and debate his words, a task that at least two of you refuse to undertake, but instead have turned to bearing false witness and name slandering, and calling the salvation of those who preach the truth into question.

 

moriah

Can you provide us with such a scripture or passage, after over Thirty Years of reading the and studying the bibe, I never saw it !

 

HP: You know why it is sometimes hard to debate a Calvinist? It is because they can say anything they want at anytime they want no matter how contradictory it is in reality. It is a system that is properly called a maelstrom of confusion. Take the remarks by Whitefield posted by EW&F. Whitefield says that "nothing", did everyone hear that? Whitfield says "nothing" he can do is without sin, including but not limited to preaching, repenting, shedding tears, and whatever else one professing to be a believer could do. ALL, I repeat, ALL IS SIN. If such remarks do not make God out to be a tasksmaster, what else could?? Not only that, if preaching, praying and shedding tears, is ALL sin, and God tells us to do it, why is that not God telling, or causing, man to sin?

Someone say Amen! (This is good preaching if I have to Amen it myself:thumbs


Just as we see in this remark by Whitfield, even the repentance that GOD HIMSELF, something said by Calvinist's to be a work of GOD HIMSELF 'apart from' the will of man, is said by the Calvinist to be lacking! What utter unbiblical, unreasonable nonsense such a system of theology imbibes. They are not elevating grace with such utter nonsense. They are making a mockery of truth in such comments regardless of whatever truth may be found in their next flip flop.

 

Who will be the first professed Calvinist to come to the defense of the words of their father, Whitfield?

Don't tell me to go and read more of what he wrote in order to understand the man. I know full well that Calvinist's can say anything they want to any time they want to, so what would it really matter? Defend this statement of Whitfield. Show where this statement is in accordance to truth, Scripture, or in accordance to reason. Don't just go searching for another comment by Whitfield that might say something different than what he did here. Anyone can say two conflicting statements in two conflicting places. Show us the truth of this comment by Whitfield as it stands and as it was posted.

 

How about some highly 'biblically cultivated' input from the likes of preacher4 truth? :thumbs:


Just so the reader does not accuse me of 'goading', (something I am certain no preacher would be guilty of) be reminded of the comments posted by preacher4truth.



P4T: What I find interesting though is that moriah and HP, being uncultivated biblically,....

HP: :smilewinkgrin:

 

Taken in context, which you are not doing HP, Whitefield is saying that even our righteousness is as filthy rags. Ever heard that before? (Is 64:6)
He is saying that any good that we do is done in the spirit. In our flesh is no good thing. Ever heard that before? (Ro 7:18)

He is also saying that we still have a nature within us to sin and that it tries to rear it's ugly head even when we do good through the spirit. Paul speaks of this very thing in Romans.

Romans 7:22-24 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

Amy sorry, but you offer nothing as proof. Your personal explanations cannot heal the absurdity of his remarks. He said, ALL that a man does is sin. Deal with his remarks as they are written, not simply try and soften the absurdity of such remarks. Maybe he took that remark back and apologized at some point in time. Who knows? Now that might be considered evidence if you can find it that he did not mean what he said.:thumbs:

The Scriptures you offer have nothing to do with his remark, nor do they say that everything that one does, even as a believer is sin. Focus Amy. Focus.