Bob, your texts prove nothing. You cannot seriously think that the quotes from Psalm 58:3 and Isaiah 48:8 are in any way literal? I have shown from Isaiah 7:16, for example, where we are clearly told that there is a time of innocence for all infants. No one is disputing that these will one day actually sin. But, to suggest that they are sinful in the womb, is complete nonsense. What crime have they committed, then? Can they accept or reject Jesus Christ? Can they believe or disbelieve the Gospel? All you are doing is arguing from Calvinistic theology, and presenting Scriptures that have no bearing on what is being discuessed here. So, by your argument, you are saying that everyone is born a "sinner"? Yet, a "sinner" is someone who actually comnmits an act of sin.
Calvinism needs to be Redefined
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, Jun 7, 2005.
Page 2 of 9
-
icthus,
In my opinion, you need to deal with Scripture and stop trying to refute a system you have defined with your own mind, with another system.
Say, it seems you have been doing a good deal of redefining Calvinism, so perhaps that is why you named this thread as you did. Reading some of your representations I did not recognize you were describing Calvinism, except that you insisted your words did define it. Perhaps you could seek to get some agreement among various persons that what you say does actually define Calvinism, and then all could be working with the same definitions.
By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio -
OK, lets deal with Scripture.
Why does it say, "For BEFORE the child know to refuse the evil and choose the good" (Isaiah 7:16), and "neither having done ANY good or evil" (Romans 9:11)? What do you think "before" is used for? and "neither having committed any good or evil"? Why use this language, which clearly is done for the purpose of showing a "time" in their lives when they did NOT have any knowledge of right or wrong. I want you to respond to these Scriptures. -
Isaiah 7:16 (KJV) For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Even an adult believer has things to learn. Do you imagine that a person is saved, then they immediately know all things? Being ignorant does not equal innocence. Were you ignorant of a stop sign, and drove through without stopping, do you suppose you would be excused were and officer of the law to observe you, or what if you were speeding because you missed the sign?
By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
June 7, 2005 -
So, what of Romans 9:11? Can you not read the plain language there? "neither having done any good or evil". Is this not clear to you? Its very plain to me what this means. That this is a time when an infant does NOT know the difference between right and wrong. As God Himself says in Jonah 4:11
-
By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio -
I already dealt with Rom 9:11 and Icthus didn't like it because it showed that he was incorrect on his interpretation.
The other passages he claims are "not literal." Well isn't that convenient. Who gets to pick and choose which ones are literal or not?
BTW, I don't think any Calvinist denies that there is a time when babies don't know right from wrong (or adults for that matter). But the point is that they are still sinners and still responsible. -
Romans 9:11 (KJV) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
The favour was given to Jacob, while the other was rejected, not based on works, but icthus, since you refuse that God has chosen His people in Christ before the foundation of the earth, there is little left to say.
By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
June 7, 2005 -
Pastor Larry,
I agree, you have shown very much, and so have others, so these that have been posting regular in opposition to sovereign grace seem to have had more shown them about the doctrine than some that embrace and hold the doctrine precious. The foundation has been rejected so what is there to build on? A reasonable and clear answer showing why the doctrine is rejected would be a help.
-
-
What do you think v. 6 is about if not salvation? What about v. 8, vv. 30-31, 10:1, 10: 4, etc? All these verses indicate very clearly that the context is about salvation. And that doesn't count the verses that actually make the argument that it is about salvation.
-
"for not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election, might stand; not of works, but of Him Who calls, it was said to her; the greater shall serve the lesser"
We all know that "election" here refers to God's preference, where He preferred Jacob over Easu. And it was with this in mind, that God worked out His plans through His choice. There is no indication to suppose that salvation is here being referred to in any way. The very fact that Paul goes on to say in verse 13, "Jacob I loved, but Easu I love less", shows that preference of persons is here referred to, and not ones salvation. The Calvinist hopes to see his "doctrines" in every verse! -
Congratulations Larry - you posted a good election passage - one of your better - I must applaud
The problem is you forget my viewpoint - in all my arguing I may appear to deny election - but I in fact believe that election does in fact exist - BUT NOT AS THE NORMATIVE EXPERIENCE!
I realize this must confuse you to no end - but just think how cursed you'd have to be to truly understand my correct and Biblical viewpoint. :chuckle:
I just leave election out of my arguments - because y'all argue for election as the normative experience and it is not - it is God superimposing His SOVEREIGN will onto mankind in such a way as to halt corruption or improve the spiritual lot of mankind. I refer to the Flood - Pharaoh's heart - Jesus human incarnation - and of course good ol Paul.
Free choice offered through a universal call is the NORMATIVE experience - but God knowing that mankind is gonna screw it up - stacks the deck by calling great men such as Paul - Noah - and other Christians of note.
I do not deny election - I deny that it is the ONLY way. Choice must be made - Responsibility must be mans to sin - not God's - and dont pull that lame oh Adam sinned we all guilty of that - fine then you are guilty of Hitler killing Jews Larry and Krajick - oh if you prefer something different - you are guilty of China/India killing Christians. They sinned its your fault. -
You want to ignore the context because you have no answer for it. Therefore you declare that it doesn't matter what the verses around it say. That doesn't work. -
No, Larry, the "doctrine" is only there when the reader demands it, as you do.
In harmony with all Scripture, Calvinism is false.
The Calvinist has to alter the Word of God in definition to mortar his belief system, the only problem is that he uses untempored mortar.
Jesus never said, "Whosoever will, that is, I elect...." -
Almost all of the great Baptist missionaries of the past were Calvinists- William Carrey, Judson. Charles Spurgeon was a dynamic soul winner and a strong Calvinist so don't beleive that bunk that Calvinism kills missions. The opposite is true- if fules it. </font>[/QUOTE]Then why are youi "moderately" calvinist?
Seems there is question in the calvinistic theology? Of course, all false doctrines need to be questioned, then dumped.
God is Sovereign. Spurgeon was only a moderate calvinist, that is what kept him going. I am speaking from experience, friend. I know several churches that have adopted calvinism that are almost shutting their doors.
It is a direct contradiction to be actively soul winning and belive that God will save all that will be saved without the will of each being givne over to the will of God. And that not by force, but of a willing heart to repent. That which godly sorrow can only work.
Sure God is Sovereign in who can be saved, but it is still whosoever will. -
-
-
Post removed for being off topic. If you wish to discuss these verses, start your own thread and discuss them. You were previously told to do that.
[ June 08, 2005, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ] -
All things are possible "WITH" God, but the calvinistic theology is not WITH God.
I dealt with your gray area you introduced.
The only way calvinism can hold water is to deny the will of man, but then your arguement is with God, that would of course be of your own will.
To think that God allows man to sin, as the elect, then would have God as permissive against the very thing He hates/ SIN!
Now, let's see how you weasel out that statement!
Page 2 of 9