Featured Calvinists & Arminian Together

What? Those scriptures do not even address this subject. You are being evasive Willis.

Come on Willis, explain how Matthew 23:37 can make sense if Calvinism is true.

Does Jesus desire the non-elect to come to him as this verse suggests?

Why doesn't God regenerate these persons if he wants them to come Willis?

 

Total Baloney Willis and you know it. God uses preachers to call men. God sends out men to call men for him.

You are in total denial now.

 

There you go, "conquering love" means "irresistible grace", "particular redemption" means "limited atonement", etc...

Spurgeon was absolutely saying TULIP is the gospel here. Therefore, if you do not believe TULIP you are not saved if Spurgeon was correct.

Own it.

 

I'm trying to be civil here, but you're making it hard. I told you I don't truly understand what Matt. 23:37 entails. I don't have the answers to every verse in the bible. That's why I was wondering if Christ was crying over Jerusalem as a man. It's when I take the bible en toto that I came to where I'm at now.

 

Breaking down your passage in Matthew 22, Bro. Wes:

King sent servants out to call people. God sends His sheep out to call people. All we can do is offer them the gospel message of reconciliation. Once we get them to church, it takes God to do the effectual working within their hearts.

How did the one get in w/o the wedding garment, Bro. Wes???

 

If that were the only scripture in the Bible that presents Calvinism a problem it might be understandable Willis, but the fact is, non-Cals can present dozens of verses that contradict and do not agree with Calvinism. You guys are constantly on the defensive.

Non-Cals do not have to deal with problems like this, scripture naturally agrees with our view. We believe God's grace is resistible, so Matthew 23:37 is not a problem for us, in fact, it is to be expected. Many man choose to resist God and will not come when he calls.

Non-Cals do not constantly have to redefine words. When the scriptures say for God so loved the "world" we believe this is speaking of ALL men everywhere. No problem, no need to redefine "world" to mean "the elect only" or "some men" as Calvinism must do.

It sure takes a lot of work to be a Calvinist.

 

How did the man without a garment get in? Easy, that is a tare. That is a man professing to be a Christian like those persons in Matthew 7 who prophesied in Jesus's name, cast out devils in Jesus's name, and did many wonderful works in Jesus's name, but Jesus replied that he never KNEW them.

The wedding garment represents Christ's righteousness. Our clothes have become filthy and torn from sin, but when we trust Christ he puts a new clean robe on us just like the prodigal son in Luke 15;

Luk 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

This man tried to come on his own works and efforts just like the false converts in Matthew 7. He did not have the righteousness of Jesus on him that comes from trusting Jesus.

There are lots of folks that "play church". They come, sit in the pew, read the Bible, sing the hymns, give an offering, etc... but they have never trusted Jesus alone to save them, they do not have his "wedding garment" on. They will be cast out.

This verse is not a problem whatsoever for non-Cals, but it is a huge problem for Calvinism. According to Total Depravity, this man should hate God and refuse to come to the wedding.

 

If God truly desires none to die lost, why do they die lost?
--they choose to die lost...

Why do they die lost?
--they love darkness rather than Light...

Why do they love darkness rather than Light?
--they choose to love darkness rather than Light...

Why do they love darkness rather than Light?
--it's their nature to do so...

BINGO!!!:thumbsup:

Loving darkness is not a choice but rather, their nature...:thumbsup:

 

Nonsense again pours from your keystrokes. From the very same sermon I quoted he said the following:

"But far be it from me to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views...I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven."

 

Last night at work, I drew blood from a sweet old lady who belongs to a FWB church. We talked about the bible, had prayer and had a sweet little taste of church right there in her hospital room. I felt the connection we had as Brother/Sister in the Lord. :thumbsup:

 

Well, he simply contradicts himself. He was talking out of both sides of his mouth. Calvinists do that all the time, they say God ordains all things that come to pass, but he does not ordain sin. That is a contradiction, that is speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

You guys are so used to this you don't even notice. Others do.

 

Correct

Correct

Correct

Yes and no. Men are not born sinful, they are born upright. (Ecc 7:29)

But all men choose to sin and BECOME filthy.

Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Willis, if you were born rich, would you tell people you have "become" rich? NO, because you were always rich. But if you were born poor, worked hard, and acquired wealth, would you then tell people you have "become" rich? YES.

The word "become" shows a change. Men were not born sinful or filthy, but all men have gone aside and "become" filthy.

Our "nature" is our lifestyle, it is a learned behavior, it is habit. Men can learn good or bad, our nature can be good. In fact, Paul said it was;

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Does Paul say the Gentiles do evil by nature here? NO, he says the exact opposite, he says the Gentiles by nature do the things contained in the law. The law is good and holy.

You can't ignore scripture like this Willis, It is clearly saying men do good by nature.

So, this view of yours that men have this sinful nature that compels them to always sin is clearly refuted by Romans 2:14-15.

If you are really taking in the whole Bible Willis, you need to take in this scripture too.

 

They in Ecc. 7:29 is Adam and Eve...

Adam fell, he became filthy, and we, being his posterity, fell and became filthy..

A tree is known by it's fruit. A corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree brings forth good fruit. You saying a tree can bring forth good fruit and then become corrupted and bring forth evil fruit...hmmmm..foreign to biblical teaching...

A spring can't produce sweet and bitter water as well, Brother Wes...

 

Baloney Willis, nice try though.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

This verse not only shows all men are made upright, it also shows why all men fall. They fall because of "many inventions". This is not speaking of Adam's one solitary sin that people falsely teach, but shows that men fall from uprightness through their own personal sins.

Nonsense, as if the Holy Spirit could not directly say that.

Amazing you have the ability to say that Adam's one sin caused all his posterity to fall and become sinners, but the Holy Spirit is unable to tell us that, but must tell us in some vague and ambiguous way. Right.

You must be smarter than God Willis.

You don't even recognize it when you are reading your presuppositions into scripture. That is how much of a habit it has become.

Yes, and if you want apples you plant an apple tree, and if you want cherries you plant a cherry tree.

Jesus showed you can determine which kind of tree you are, and which kind of fruit you produce.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Jesus showed we have both option (Either, or else) and ability (make) to determine whether we are a good tree that produces good fruit, or a corrupt tree that produces corrupt fruit.

Again Willis, if you are going to listen to all scripture, you need to listen to Matthew 12:33 as well.

 

How so? Spurgeon wasn't saying that people could not be saved hearing a non-Calvinistic message. He was using a bit of hyperbole to make the point that he considered the Calvinist/Reformed view of the gospel to be the most correct view. Many on this board believe the free will view of the gospel is the most correct view, but they would not say Calvinists are not saved.

 

God said that He is Soveregn, and that he did NOT ordain sin, that He cannot sin,nor tempt others to sin, so the ONLY contridiction is that you try to be on the same rreasoning levels as God is!

 

He is asaying that when the true Gospel is preached/taught, the end result is that sinners will be saved by the calvinistic framework of understanding, but that salvation itself does NOR hinge on us accepting/or even understanding that framework!

 

I agree with you that God did not ordain sin, but if God did not ordain sin, then he did not ordain all things. Sin exists.

God also said that men do things he never commanded;

Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

How can something be ordained of God if he did not command it? How could God have ordained something that did not come into his mind?

The definition of the word ordained;

The very definition of "ordain" means to command something. So how could God ordain something he never commanded? That is an outright contradiction.

Do you believe men do things God never commanded?

Yes or no?

 

That is a contradiction of God's word. If Calvinism is the gospel, and you do not believe Calvinism, then you believe another gospel, and Paul said that anyone who preaches another gospel that he did not preach is accursed.

Gal 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.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

It's not "kind of OK" if someone preaches a slightly different gospel. There is only one gospel, and if you preach another, Paul said let that man be accursed.