Unconditional Election means Unconditional Reprobation

If it cannot save, then why are you so adamant that you need it? You call it inconsequential but accuse the Calvinists of saying we can do without it (which we don't). If our small part is so inconsequential, then why all the hullabaloo?? If it is inconsequential, then why is it the difference between heaven and hell? The truth is that you don't really think it is inconsequential. You are trying to figure out a way to keep salvation all of God (as you should) while keeping man responsible in your mind.

 

Respectfully Pastor:
If I wish to leave, I will do so, if you chose to delete me or ban me, so be it. Funny how the world will keep right on turning.

My biggest draw back to learning is what you are trying to teach. Another thing that I am sure of is that you have your little circle here, and for the sake of defending Calvinism; none of you are willing to speak your mind least you give the impression of disagreeing with each other. I have not brought a single false accusation against Calvinism. Are you capable of learning that? It is the truth.

There are many other Calvinist that I talk with, many would say that you are not even a Calvinist. I have posted concerns that have been shared with me by others professing to be Calvinist, Things that you have denied, they have affirmed. Also my early days in the ministry were under a wonderful Calvinist minister. We did not agree, but he never exhibited the type of behavior that is common among Calvinist on this board save one. Stop trying to tell me what5 other Calvinist believe, they have already told me themselves what they believe. If you can finally realize that you have not been chosen to speak on behalf of all Calvinists, it will greatly improve your ability to listen if not learn.

Finally, you are not my teacher; I am not one of your flock. You are not in your pulpit here. We all should be able to share here based on equality mutual respect for each other. Teach in your own pulpit, learn to share here. Again, you are not my teacher. I reject what you teach just as you reject what I teach. Ban me if you chose, or get use to dialog with people that do not agree with you. To this point it has proved to be a major stumbling block to you.

If we can ever establish some ground rules based on equality, perhaps we can them engage in some fruitful discussion. As long as you think that you are in your own pulpit, we have a problem. You---are---not---my---teacher……..

 

Never said that I needed it. Said that God said it. God said it, I believe it. Not my plan, his plan.

Pastor:
You asked for, and I gave a passage by passage exegesis on John 6:44 and I maintained context by addressing surrounding passages, one which you pretended that you would respond to. You got busy, but not to busy to make a dozen or so other posts. Until you respond i must conclude that it was too hot for you to handle. I consider it to be important in view of how essential this passage is to your cause.

[ October 12, 2002, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

Excellent point Scott!

BOTh the Arminian AND Calvinist views fully accept that the "Drawing" of God in John 12:32 is sufficient to compensate for ALL considerations of "Total depravity' such that the lost are enabled to choose life!

Arminians "ACCEPT" that the ALL of John 12:32 is to be left - asis and not redefined down to the "arbitrarily selected FEW of Matt 7".

IN the Arminian view the Drawing of God ENABLES the choice that DEPRAVITY denied. ALL relaly IS all for Arminian theology.

The point of John 6 then is that WIHTOUT that Drawing man CAN NOT come to God. And there again BOTH the Arminian and Cavlinist groups can agree.

The obvious problem that leaves for Calvinism is effectively pointed out in your post above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Even a cursory reading of Matt 18 and Ezekiel 18 does the job explicitly. Ezekiel 18 shows justification revoked, MAtt 18 shows forgiveness revoked. It could not be spelled out by an Armininan in any clearer illustration than that.

The text is going to require a lot of re-working to make it Calvinism-friendly.

I applaud the efforts of those who have tried - though not many have attempted it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since you appear to accept the term "fallacious' as appropriate for the topic, I propose that in failing to evaluate the context of Lev 18 you have put forward a fallacious argument regarding the command.

In Lev 18 Israel was told that acts of homosexuality and other gross sins resulted in the utter expulsion of the pagans from the land in the past. They are warned that if they engaged in the murders and sexual perversions like those before them - they too would be cast out of the land and obliterated as those were before them.

The contrast is between Israel "The Chosen" of God "the Royal Priesthood" And "Holy Nation" and the pagans. The calling of God's people IN relationship with Him - and the total depravity of the lost pagans before them who rejected God.

IF the conclusion could be made that God's Own Chosen "CAN NOT" choose obedience any more than the totally depraved of the land before them - and that the Saints of the OT MUST follow the SAME path as the pagans before them - then the command to obey is reduced to a fatalistic and meaningless warning.

The context of the chapter shows no such indication.

In John 14 Christ - before the Cross - makes the same appeal to HIS people "IF you love Me KEEP my commandments". It is IN the context of HAVING the relationship that the call to obedience is given.

[/quote]

The context again (that would be exegesis) shows that JUST as the "Meek inherit the earth" and that the "peacemakers are Blessed" so the command to be perfect is given - TO those who are IN relationship with God and not tossed out as a fatalistic non-commmand to His followers as if "Go ahead my chosen people and Try to be perfect EVEN as God is perfect, you will fail". That sense is not found in the text.

Instead - we find the DRAWING of God enables the WALK. "You ARE the light of the World" 5:14. Christ Himself IS the light of the World (John 16-13) and we share in that only as Christ is "IN" us - those who are IN relationship with Him.

Paul agrees, "IT is no longer I who live but Christ that Lives in me and the Life I LIVE in the flesh I Live by faith in the Son of God" - so that in refernce to rebellion against God's Word Paul can state "Is Christ a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I REBUILD what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be in rebellion".

The notion of saints-doomed-to-rebelleion is not found in the teaching of Christ. Paul explicitly addresses it many times - the entire chapter of Romans 6 is dedicated to the topic.

In Christ,

Bob

[ October 12, 2002, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

I find do not find the word "justified" in Matthew chapter 18. I do find this:

(Matthew 18:14 NKJV) "Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

And this is being talked about in connection with God's action in seeking a straying sheep. Man's only action is in straying. So unless you are going to argue that in an action taken totally by God that He can fail to accomplish His goal, you have failed to prove your point. In fact, it is the doctrine that God will bring His people safely home to Him that is proven here.

Ezekiel chapter 18 is talking about keeping the Law of Moses.

(Ezekiel 18:21 NKJV) "But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

We know that none except Christ Jesus kept all of God's statutes.

(Rom 10:5 NKJV) For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them."

(Gal 3:11 NKJV) But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."

The apostle Paul's point in Romans is that righteousness cannot come by keeping the law because no one can keep it perfectly - Christ Jesus kept it perfectly on behalf of His people.

So, Ezekiel chapter 18 is also totally useless in your attempt to prove your point.

And your argument is refuted without bringing Calvinism into the mix, or even Spurgeonism. Arminianism fails again.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Personal faith in Christ is consequential enough for God to execute justification in the life of the sinner. [Romans 5:1] Without a human response toward the Lord there is no promised eternal life. [John 5:24] Rubber stamping either Calvinism or Arminianism does not insure Heaven for a person. A weekly quoting of some church confession also does not bring about a convenant relationship to God. Only a personal faith/trust in Christ is pleasing to Almighty God.

 

Ah ha. A break in the ranks of the non-Calvinists/Arminians. It looks like Ray disagrees with Chappie's use of the term "inconsequential".

Why, oh why, can't the non-Calvinists/Arminians agree among themselves so it would be easier to debate with them?

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

All that Chappie and I were saying is that even the smallest amount of faith in Jesus Christ brings everlasting life. Calvinists either trust Him for their personal salvation or they don't. I'm glad that I am not numbered among those who don't fully trust Him to bring His grace into their lives. Salvation is by grace alone. [Ephesians 2:8a] The agent that connects us to God in a covenant relationship is the human being. How is it done. Through our faith/trust reliance in the Triune Godhead. [Ephesians 2:8a]

 

Chappie,

As for what other calvinists believe, I have read enough and talked to enough to know that I am in the vast majority. IF you have heard differently, then you should take it up with them. I really can't help you. I know what mainstream calvinists believe. I have never been doubted to be a calvinist, except by the primitives.

My issue, however, is very simple. YOu keep telling me what I believe, and I keep saying I don't recognize it. I will stand by what I have said with regards to learning. It is always helpful to learn from people who know what they are talking about, especially when it comes to what they personally believe. I have learned that the hard way too many times.

As for John 6, if you will direct me to your post, I will address it. I have addressed John 6 more times than I care to remember. In fact, just last week I addressed it for Scott in response to a cut and paste that he posted. But for your sake, I will do it again to address your particular concerns. YOu should know that I shy away from nothing. MY answer may be "I don't know," Or "I don't fully understand" but I will not shy away from it.

 

Are you saying that it is not permissable to discuss how other Calvinists perceive their faith on this board. And I do not doubt that you are a Calvinist. Yet what you fail to realize is that even other so called mainstream calvinist do not preceive their faith exactly as you do.

Your issue would be a valid one if it were true, I have tried to discuss the end game rammifications of election. But as for trying to tell you what you believe, you do greatly err Pastor. I have tried to discuss what others believe, but because you disagree, you take it personally. It's not about you, it's about Calvinism.

Have to get ready for Sunday School, I will redirect you to the post in question after...

Have a good day, and may God bless....

 

No ... it is fine for you to discuss whatever anyone here wishes to discuss. But I haven't seen any Calvinist arguing that God forces his grace on people. If I missed him or her, please identify them and I will let the conversation continue. Every one on this board that I am aware of has refuted and rejected the idea of forced grace so you are arguing against someone who does not exist here to my knowledge. On many posts, that charge has been leveled at me and I have refuted it each time. That is why it should not be brought back up.

[/qb]Then let's discuss those ramifications. I am more than willing to do that. My impression of what you have said that "Irresistable grace (which I believe) is forced grace (which I reject) no matter what they say (which I have said often)." I think that sentence is pretty much verbatim from a post yesterday or Friday in response to something I wrong to Ray or Scott. In fact, I believe it was in the post to Scott where you first broached the idea of leaving the board. That was a comment directed to me regarding issues which I have explained and refuted. You appeared to try again to make it out as if I believe in forced grace (no matter what I say) when in fact I do not and have explained how it is not forced.

I welcome any discussion about what we believe, so long as it is about what we actually believe.

Same to you

 

Hi Pastor.
Have you ever heard the story of Little Red Ridding Hood? The wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing did not become a sheep because he deceived Little Red. He looked like a sheep; he even tried to act like a sheep. But beneath it all, he was still a wolf. And no matter how much Little Red wanted him to be a sheep, he remained a wolf.

So you see, it is not about what you say it is, it is all about what it is. And that, is what is there for everyone to see. Your grace requires force in order to be effective, because the ones to which it is applied do not want it applied to them. They hate God, and love the world.

Concerning my remarks about maybe not being here for too much longer. I was/am under the impression that if I continue to contend with you; that I would be deleted (which has already occurred) and then banished, which appears to be next on the agenda. My post was to let you know that I prefer being banished rather than being told what I can and cannot say, or to shut up. That being as long as I contend with a person’s theology instead of attacking a person personally.

I must admit tho, I do respond provocatively when I am spoken to provocatively. You may not realize this Pastor Larry, but some of your responses are very provocative. I respect you enough not to believe that it is intentional, yet I did present an effort to get you to look at your tone of voice as well as mine.

So delete me, ban me, as you deem necessary. I respect your position as moderator. But when it comes to theology, I thought that we could all dialog on a level playing field. Perhaps we can have laugh about it when we get to heaven. Shoot, if I meet you at 7-11 tomorrow, we can laugh about it. Yet perhaps that is an event for heaven. Yet for now I shall continue to voice my concerns about salvational election and efficacious grace in a manner that is as persuasive and respectful as I possibly can.

Ps;
A sure way of knowing that you read me is when you delete me.

Love you in Christ. I would make that in person, but, as of now I don't even know if you have a baldhead or not. (a prerequisite for a personal relationship)

[ October 14, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

That can be seen clearly in the text as it references the evil deeds not being remembered.

Indeed - the point above was about "Forgiveness" - may I assume you did not find that in Matt 18?

How about finding this..

35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/quote]

Maybe you just are not reading that text close enough.
---------------------------------

Actually - as great as Moses is - Moses is just a sinner who can not define sin or put people in hell. IT is in fact "God's" Law that is the "only Law" capable of defining sin - according to Romans 7.

Ezekiel 18 is speaking of sin "The Soul that Sins will Die". And the sins are forgiven or retained by God JUST as He (that is right - scripture is inspired by God) states it.

This is not a quote of Moses - nor simply of Ezekiel - but of God.

Indeed - but Paul adds

So Paul fully endorses the principle we find in Ezekiel 18


13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

And Paul even provides the most extreme case of success -someone without scripture themselves succeeding by the rule given in vs 13.

#1. You did not even get to the part of justification in Ezek 18 - sins remembered no more.

#2. You did not show Paul negating scripture in Ezekiel 18 - and in fact Romans 2 endorses the Ezek 18 principle - the entire chapter of Romans 2 is in full and complete agreement - as is Romans 6 and 8 and...

#3. you completely ignored the words of Christ in Matt 18 regarding the forgiveness revoked scenario that HE introduced and applied to US.

In Christ,

Bob

[ October 15, 2002, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]