Featured Do you really understand your 'opponents' views?

JBH since you have restated your views: I will again defend (for the most part) the accurracy of what I initially posted. Once the rhetorical flourishes and disclaimers are not included the basic statements I made are true...With a little editing:

o.k we can split hairs...how about we modify "irreparably" to "decretally", but you then double-down:

You neglected to mention that God refuses of his own Soverign purposes to "repair" many of the incapably broken.

I understood your compatibilism... I included the principle in my first quote: I repeat here:

note the word "predisposed"

And why do they "choose" not too?.... because....

note the word "predisposed"

Right and everyone accepts this..... so what?

Why not include that in the statement?
note this word in my post:

That is the real key: the Enabling is (acc. your view) God's sole and Sovereign decree is it not?

Here you Changed "all" to "anyone" see:

Hence my initial response......that it was an opportunity for a Calvinist to positively use the word "all" and that you should take it when you get it.

.....and what, pray tell, is the mitigating factor in their desire to be saved?

Does ANYONE in your view want to? if not Why not? Some obviously do....How does that happen?

I would be thrilled if you could quote where I said that, I would not say that. I know Calvinist doctrine (and its talking points) too well.

I honestly cannot see how your views were in any (accept for perhaps the most insignifigant of details) mis-represented. Granted, again, I stated them very disphemistically, and intentionally so. Because if some of the rhetorical flourish is removed, then people can get an honest picture of Calvinism in all of its splendour.

 

No, he doesn't refuse to save depraved people. You're saved right? You were broken. I was broken god saved me.

Desire.

You seemed to be implying the opposite in a sense. God would not be bad if he didn't save.

Of why some come, sure. God enables them to come. (John 6)

All that believe and anyone that believes are synonymous.

Their sin gets in their way. They desire their sin more than God.

The Spirit convicts their heart(John 16:9) and changes their heart from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh(Ex 36)

I thought that the statement of "No, he is creating some irrevocably incapable of coming to him, and others irrresistably drawn to him." was saying that. If I misread you, sorry.

An honest picture of Calvinism is that you have depraved man that sins against God, but God in his loving mercy saves us even after we reject him.

My biggest problem with what you say is that it implies a very ugly picture of Calvinism, one which is not true.

 

I was asking about the mitigating factor in the redeemed's desire to actually accept or choose Christ, not the mitigating factor in the reprobate's choice to remain in a state of condemnation.

Fair enough... I might have worded that differently to avoid confusion. I think I should have avoided the word "create".... as a.... gasp...... Molinist, I tend to like the word "actualized" more anyway.:laugh:

True enough, it is not an "active" refusal per se.... but it is kind of a "passive" by-pass which results in the same end no? I understand that a Calvinistic view likes to focus on the positive selection of the elect and not the by-passing of the reprobate...but it is a reality that must be addressed yes? By no means am I, or will I, insist that all forms of Calvinism must concede a "double-predestination". I would argue, I think, that the difference between active and passive predestination would be the key...thoughts? Would you say there is more to it than that?

Yes, and they were "actualized" "created" "made" or "born" with that as an overwhelming factor yes?

I am not a Calvinist...therefore....I assume that I am included in the word "everyone"

True True:thumbsup: Of course that is the gospel period yes? From any perspective?

Oh, and BTW... I am aware of the fact that I am rather rough and brash in my manner of speaking sometimes.....Well, I am passionate. After all I could have avoided saying:

And merely said: " Naturally, I was including myself" But honestly....honestly.... how could I POSSIBLY have resisted the overwhelming urge? It was just too EASY!...it was right THERE! You GAVE it to me!!!! AAARRRRGGGHHH:BangHead:

 

Understand as I can be too.

 

I think a nerve was struck. Semi-Pelagianism is as semi-Pelagianism does. If you believe man cooperates with God in salvation then you are espousing semi-Pelagian doctrine. You may deny it. You may even hold to sound orthodox teaching for the majority of your theology, but on the issue of soteriology you would be partnering with God.

Your attempt at drawing a parallel between Islam and the doctrines of grace doesn't even get out of the starting gate. There's a reason it is called "the doctrines of grace" as opposed to the doctrines of fatalism. Reformed theology does not emasculate the will of man - it liberates it. Even the semi-Pelagian has to eventually agree that there is a limit to how far he can exercise his will. The distinction is that the Reformed Christian believes that freedom of the will is accomplished at the moment of regeneration whereas the semi-Pelagian believes it was free before salvation*.

*I use "freedom of the will" in the positive sense, not negative. In Reformed Theology the will is considered bound prior to salvation and is in no-wise free.

 

Once you express your opinion on the Word of God you have introduced "man's word." If we really want to preserve the purity of the Bible we should all remain silent and not offer an opinion. After all, if we comment on the Bible we are adding our own words.

The creeds and confessions were written at the end of long and arduous sessions. During these sessions men of God debated, discussed, and reasoned together. Collectively they wrote down their agreement on some of the great doctrines of the faith. These writings are not Scripture, but to the extent that they offer accurate commentary they are a faithful tool to the Church. Among the Reformed community there is a distinction made between catholic (general) confessions and Roman Catholic confessions.

 

You do realize Brother, that by we agreeing on this subject, it does not bode well for either of us? :laugh: :wavey: :love2:

 

Semantics only. Reformed theology is deterministic and fatalistic. It is a complete fallacy to state that Reformed theology liberates the will of man. So, after regeneration, a person is free to later reject salvation? Yeah, Reformed theology frees the will, alright.

 

I had posted this earlier for seekingtruth...I will re-post it for you now:
Quote:
17
INTRODUCTION
Scriptures
“Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest
thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest
they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach
them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons…the LORD said unto
me…I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to
fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that
they may teach their children.” Deut. 4:9–10
“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in
thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy
children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine
house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest
down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a
sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between
thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy
house, and on thy gates.” Deut. 6:4–9
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:16–17
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2
Tim. 2:15
“…ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring
them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Eph. 6:4
The Term “Catechize”
The English word “catechism” is derived from the Gk. verb katēchēo, “to
resound, teach orally, instruct by mouth.” This term originally had the idea of
“speaking down or from above” i.e., from actors on an elevated stage. It is a
compound of the preposition kata, “down, throughout, thoroughly” and the
verb ēchēo, “to sound,” the source of our English word, “echo.” There seems
to be in this etymology the idea of a responsive answer. Catechizing has the
connotation of thorough or repeated oral instruction, and is only one of
several related terms for instruction or teaching found in Scripture.

The term
itself occurs eight times in the New Testament (twice as “informed” in Acts
21:21, 24, referring to word–of–mouth information):
“That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou
hast been catechized.” Luke 1:4.18
“This man had been constantly catechized in the way of the Lord;
and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the
things of the Lord...” Acts 18:25.
“And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more
excellent, being constantly catechized out of the law...” Romans
2:18.
“Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my
understanding, that by my voice I might catechize others also, than
ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” 1 Cor. 14:19.
“Let him who is being catechized in the word communicate unto him
who catechizes in all good things.” Gal. 6:6.C. H. Spurgeon on Catechizing





Quote:
QUESTION 1: Why use a catechism?
ANSWER: There are several reasons why churches, families and individuals
should make good use of a suitable catechism:
1. The use of a catechism is scriptural in principle and is based upon the
Divine mandate for biblical instruction in the Old Testament and also
the inspired example of the New Testament (Deut. 4:9–10; 6:4–9; Lk.
1:4; Gal. 6:6; Eph. 6:1–4). The question–and–answer format of
modern catechisms is incidental to the pervading scriptural principle
23
of catechizing, which evidently consisted of repetitive oral
instruction, commitment to memory and an oral response.



Quote:
Some Objections Against Catechizing Answered
OBJECTION ONE: Why, as Baptists, use a catechism? Do not catechisms
belong only to the Romanists, Lutherans or Reformed Christians? We have
only one creed—the Bible! We will not and cannot put any literature on
par with the Scriptures, or add to the Word of God in any way.



Quote:
Baptists used catechisms extensively and with much spiritual profit
until the past century. This objection itself demonstrates the sad
departure of some Baptists from their own doctrinal distinctives and
practice, and the ignorance of some modern Baptists concerning their
own history and spiritual heritage. Following are some of the more
well–known catechisms written and used by Baptists:
• Henry Jessey, Particular Baptist, A Catechism for Babes, or Little
Ones, 1652.
• Hercules Collins, Particular Baptist, The Orthodox Catechism
(adapted from the Heidelberg Catechism), 1680.
• Thomas Grantham, General Baptist, St. Paul’s Catechism (based
on the six principles of Hebrews 6), 1687.
• Benjamin Keach and William Collins, The Baptist Catechism,
1693.
• The Philadelphia Baptist Association of Particular Baptists
published a catechism appended to their Philadelphia Confession
of Faith, 1742.
• William Gadsby, Gospel Standard Baptist, published a catechism
entitled The Things Most Surely Believed Among Us, 1809.
• C. H. Spurgeon published A Baptist Catechism (compiled from
the Westminster Shorter Catechism and Keach’s Baptist
Catechism), 1855.
• The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention
published two catechisms: the first by J. P. Boyce, A Brief
Catechism of Bible Doctrine (1864) and the second by John A.
Broadus (1892). The latter work was jointly published by both the
Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist
Publication Society.


As a Baptist ...I always recommend this one for everyone;
http://www.lulu.com/shop/w-r-downing...F9CD305848B0AF

PS....did someone buy you a thesaurus for Christmas????

__________________
All that die have not the plague, and all that
perish eternally are not guilty of the same profligate sins.The covetous are
excluded from the kingdom of God no less severely than fornicators,
idolaters, adulterers, and thieves, 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Iconoclast; Yesterday at 04:58 PM.

 

God has given Godly teachers to teach....that implies learners,students, disciples.

John...as you try "just the bible" feel free to interact and correct any of the posted confessions or cathechisms......Did you read my answer to you on this??? Cathechising is biblical instruction;

Quote:
17
INTRODUCTION
Scriptures
“Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest
thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest
they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach
them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons…the LORD said unto
me…I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to
fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that
they may teach their children.” Deut. 4:9–10
“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in
thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy
children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine
house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest
down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a
sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between
thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy
house, and on thy gates.” Deut. 6:4–9
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:16–17
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2
Tim. 2:15
“…ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring
them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Eph. 6:4
The Term “Catechize”
The English word “catechism” is derived from the Gk. verb katēchēo, “to
resound, teach orally, instruct by mouth.” This term originally had the idea of
“speaking down or from above” i.e., from actors on an elevated stage. It is a
compound of the preposition kata, “down, throughout, thoroughly” and the
verb ēchēo, “to sound,” the source of our English word, “echo.” There seems
to be in this etymology the idea of a responsive answer. Catechizing has the
connotation of thorough or repeated oral instruction, and is only one of
several related terms for instruction or teaching found in Scripture. The term
itself occurs eight times in the New Testament (twice as “informed” in Acts
21:21, 24, referring to word–of–mouth information):
“That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou
hast been catechized.” Luke 1:4.18
“This man had been constantly catechized in the way of the Lord;
and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the
things of the Lord...” Acts 18:25.
“And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more
excellent, being constantly catechized out of the law...” Romans
2:18.
“Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my
understanding, that by my voice I might catechize others also, than
ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” 1 Cor. 14:19.
“Let him who is being catechized in the word communicate unto him
who catechizes in all good things.” Gal. 6:6.C. H. Spurgeon on Catechizing





Quote:
QUESTION 1: Why use a catechism?
ANSWER: There are several reasons why churches, families and individuals
should make good use of a suitable catechism:
1. The use of a catechism is scriptural in principle and is based upon the
Divine mandate for biblical instruction in the Old Testament and also
the inspired example of the New Testament (Deut. 4:9–10; 6:4–9; Lk.
1:4; Gal. 6:6; Eph. 6:1–4). The question–and–answer format of
modern catechisms is incidental to the pervading scriptural principle
23
of catechizing, which evidently consisted of repetitive oral
instruction, commitment to memory and an oral response.



Quote:
Some Objections Against Catechizing Answered
OBJECTION ONE: Why, as Baptists, use a catechism? Do not catechisms
belong only to the Romanists, Lutherans or Reformed Christians? We have
only one creed—the Bible! We will not and cannot put any literature on
par with the Scriptures, or add to the Word of God in any way.



Quote:
Baptists used catechisms extensively and with much spiritual profit
until the past century. This objection itself demonstrates the sad
departure of some Baptists from their own doctrinal distinctives and
practice, and the ignorance of some modern Baptists concerning their
own history and spiritual heritage. Following are some of the more
well–known catechisms written and used by Baptists:
• Henry Jessey, Particular Baptist, A Catechism for Babes, or Little
Ones, 1652.
• Hercules Collins, Particular Baptist, The Orthodox Catechism
(adapted from the Heidelberg Catechism), 1680.
• Thomas Grantham, General Baptist, St. Paul’s Catechism (based
on the six principles of Hebrews 6), 1687.
• Benjamin Keach and William Collins, The Baptist Catechism,
1693.
• The Philadelphia Baptist Association of Particular Baptists
published a catechism appended to their Philadelphia Confession
of Faith, 1742.
• William Gadsby, Gospel Standard Baptist, published a catechism
entitled The Things Most Surely Believed Among Us, 1809.
• C. H. Spurgeon published A Baptist Catechism (compiled from
the Westminster Shorter Catechism and Keach’s Baptist
Catechism), 1855.
• The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention
published two catechisms: the first by J. P. Boyce, A Brief
Catechism of Bible Doctrine (1864) and the second by John A.
Broadus (1892). The latter work was jointly published by both the
Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist
Publication Society.


As a Baptist ...I always recommend this one for everyone;
http://www.lulu.com/shop/w-r-downing...F9CD305848B0AF
__________________
All that die have not the plague, and all that
perish eternally are not guilty of the same profligate sins.The covetous are
excluded from the kingdom of God no less severely than fornicators,
idolaters, adulterers, and thieves, 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Iconoclast; Yesterday at 04:58 PM.

 

Herald

There is indeed:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/glynn.CALVINIST-RHETORIC.Euphemism-and-Dysphemism

 

Heralds post agrees with Jesus teaching.....

16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

Regenerate people are free to serve God...they are not free to sin!

 

The verses you post do not support Herald's post or Reformed theology. I don't know how anyone could see Reformed theology in any of these verses.

I agree with your last sentence, btw.

 

That is because they are!
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

The terms pelagianism, and semi-peligianism come to us in a historical context...not in a vacuum....

 

Because reformed theology gives a biblical view of mans condition since the fall. Romans 6 says that men are willing bondslaves to sin:thumbs:

When God sets a man "free' of this bondage..he becomes the willing bondslave of righteousness .

 

No, Icon..... They are arguing against YOUR PARTICULAR CONCEPT OF COVENANT THEOLOGY. Seriously, ask the Lvl. 55 Calvinist clerics in the smoke-filled rooms and they will admit that to a great degree... its just a rhetorical device. They wouldn't admit it to me, but they would to you I think.

And.....I will submit some equally germaine verses to support Arminianism/Calvinism/Dispensationalism/Manicheanism...heck pick one:

14And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying, 15Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. 16And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD, as he was commanded. 17And these were the sons of Levi by their names; Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari. 18And these are the names of the sons of Gershon by their families; Libni, and Shimei. 19And the sons of Kohath by their families; Amram, and Izehar, Hebron, and Uzziel. 20And the sons of Merari by their families; Mahli, and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites according to the house of their fathers.

21Of Gershon was the family of the Libnites, and the family of the Shimites: these are the families of the Gershonites. 22Those that were numbered of them, according to the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, even those that were numbered of them were seven thousand and five hundred. 23The families of the Gershonites shall pitch behind the tabernacle westward. 24And the chief of the house of the father of the Gershonites shall be Eliasaph the son of Lael.

25And the charge of the sons of Gershon in the tabernacle of the congregation shall be the tabernacle, and the tent, the covering thereof, and the hanging for the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, 26And the hangings of the court, and the curtain for the door of the court, which is by the tabernacle, and by the altar round about, and the cords of it for all the service thereof.

UHHH...Yeah....Conveniently...They come to us in the context of a man who was dubbed a heretic By the RCC (as though that means anything). HONESTLY Icon please answer me this question....If Pelagius were vindicated...and declared a Saint: Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE Cals would be using that comparison to refer to non-cals?

 

How would you define Arminianism?

 

I could spend my entire life studying what opponents believe and never know what scripture teaches. Why study error? I must study scripture to know the truth.

Years ago my employer asked me a question, "How do you tell a crooked stick? I gave him an answer and then he said, "You lay a straight one next to it." In my work I employ standards that everything else is tested against.

 

But what if you can't tell a straight stick in order to lay it next to the crooked one? Maybe you lay a crooked one next to it. Oh, never mind.