Response to Icon's last...
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Inspector Javert, Jun 23, 2014.
-
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInspector Javert said: ↑YES!!!
So, whether or not I "WOULD" worship him is INDISPUTABLE!!!
And already DECREED!
NO I DON'T....It's just that you yourself have ALREADY ANSWERED IT see your own quote and let it sink in for a second....
Maybe you just read yourself....and maybe you didn't. I can only assume you didn't so let me make sure your own statements sink into your thick skull...
Listen to you AGAIN:
Did you hear yourself???
If God planned and purposed it then....YES!!!
If he didn't then NO!!!!
How simple is that to understand?
Yes, it was...
It wasn't the ANSWER you wanted...But it WAS the question.
I assure you. The failure to communicate is not my failure to comprehend nor yours to simplify...
it's simply that you either:
1.) Understand NOTHING about Calvinism
2.) Are being deliberately obtuse
3.) I won't state this option out loud.....
DING DING DING!!!!!!
So HOW do you insist that someone answer either YES or NO???
GET IT???
WE DON'T KNOW!
And the answer is....
That if I were foreordained to do so....I would
If I were not I wouldn't....
Read the CONFESSION!
Let me explain the fundamentals of Calvinism and election according to Calvinism to you since you don't get them:
If it is God Almighty's good pleasure to save any given person, than he will....
All others are left in their sin, and are unwilling and therefore incapable of worshipping the God of the Bible by nature, and are therefore condemned to receive the recompense of their sin as is meet.
There is a definite and unchangeable number of those whom God has in his mercy chosen to save and he has gifted to them Jesus Christ to assuredly save them.
Jesus Christ is the Father's gift to the elect.
The elect are the Father's gift to Jesus Christ.
Full retribution for sin and justice are Christ's gift to the Father
The Holy Spirit and salvation are Christ's gift to the elect
Eternal worship and adoration are the elect's gift to the Father.
All those whom the Father GAVE TO Jesus are assuredly saved and will worship him...
All those whom the Father did NOT GIVE to Jesus are passed over to die in their sins and have no possibility of redemption.
Those are the only two possibilities, therefore, in answer to your question:
If I were one of those GIVEN TO the Son, then yes, I would worship him..
If I AM NOT one of those given to the Son, then no, it is not possible.
There is no other option.
I see you still need more tutoring into the fundamentals of Calvinism. So, here you go:
ALL MEN HATE the truth of God's revelation to man such that they are all irretrievably lost unless and until God completely regenerates them and provides unto those he has decreed from eternity to save. He changes their nature, he gives them a new heart, and he saves them to the uttermost....
Those to whom he did not choose to show that grace, remain in the state of "hating the teaching" such that they cannot and will not be saved under any conditions, as it is God's Will that they be passed-over.
I know what it is you want to discuss....and the manner in which you want to discuss it.....
Here's the deal Icon:
Accept the fact that Calvinists CAN'T discuss things in the same way that others can....
You are not allowed.
You are not permitted.
You can't get what you want here.
Arminians can ask counterfactual questions like this...
Open Theists can ask counterfactual questions like this
Non-Calvinist Free-Will- accepting Bible-Believers can ask counterfactual questions like this.
Calvinists Cannot.
You are not allowed to....Your Theology doesn't permit it. Accept it, and move on.
You need more basic courses in Calvinism 101 I see:
ALL MEN "hate" those teachings and only those definite, finite and unchangeable number of persons whom God has aforetime elected to embrace those teachings will ever come to love him and accept those teachings. All others are hard-wired by their nature to hate them, and there is a fixed amount of those whom he has elected to both save, and sanctify to the point that they embrace his revelation.....
Like I said....
If God has foreordained it...I'd worship him as such
If not, I won't...
You don't know the first thing about Calvinism do you Icon?
This question begs the assumption of Calvinism Icon....It's your founding premise...
Therefore, only a "Calvinist" answer is possible.
If we assume the 1689 as you demand...
Than we assume the only possibility that it is either ordained by God or not.
There are no two ways about it.
You don't understand the implications of the confession.....Or you are simply refusing to accept them.
It isn't "telling"....there's no new information added by them claiming they wouldn't....
All that is in the Confession already...
All men already hate the God of Scripture according to that Confession and can not possibly love the revelation of himself that he has given to men unless he has chosen them as a part of that finite number to love and assuredly worship him...
There's nothing to tell.....I knew that much...
If you find their answers "telling"...than you clearly don't understand Calvinism...as I could have told you that much from the get-go.
No, but the answer is that the foreordained "WILL" and the non-elect "WON'T"...
How hard is that to understand?
If I were foreordained to, then yes...
If I were not, then no.
It is not at all like that.
Not at all.
You are contradicting yourself...you just said above that that WASN'T the question...I quote you here from this same response:
<---since you aren't following...this is you claiming that you are NOT asking if I am one of the ordained...
And here's you claiming that you ARE asking if I am one of the ordained...
In the same response you have claimed back to back that you both ARE and ARE NOT asking if any one person is pre-ordained to Salvation...
Icon...
Just stop.
Whether I believe in the God it describes...IS a valid question...
Whether or not I "WOULD" worship him or not is NOT a valid question.
Let's proceed from there. O.K?Click to expand...
You can call names but the question has not gone away...has it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Inspector Javert
What God has decreed will come to pass that is not in dispute
YES!!!
So, whether or not I "WOULD" worship him is INDISPUTABLE!!!
And already DECREED!Click to expand...
individual Election unto salvation is a biblical truth...... do you believe the gospel is another question altogether.
what exists as a biblical fact.....and your trusting in it are two different issues.....from the Divine side it is certain....from the human side people are asked...do you believe...
all of your rhetoric is not going to change the question.....
most of your ranting is irrational....I do not need to respond to such....hope your feeling better soon!Click to expand...Click to expand... -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Once again I would like to thank God that he predestined me to be a non-Cal. Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!
-
Iconoclast said: ↑Inspector Javert said: ↑You do not want to answerClick to expand...
Get used to it.
Prior to getting married...I asked a lot of girls out:
They often said "no".
I don't accuse them of "not answering"....
They answered...they just didn't answer the way I wanted.
I didn't give you what you want.
So be it.
Adults know they don't always get what they want.
Grow up.
because you know the implicationsClick to expand...
YOU DON'T
is what I see with all this carrying on and diversion.Click to expand...
That's probably true, I try to find 300 different ways to say the same thing because I tend to assume people are too stupid to understand it. That's my fault....
But by "diversion" if you mean that I am avoiding the question in your O.P....
That is false....I am hitting it head on and directly and relevantly right at it's source.
You just don't like it.
Get used to disappointment.
You can call namesClick to expand...
I have not called anyone any "name" and it is a lie to say as much.
You owe me an apology for that false accusation. It is a lie.
but the question has not gone away...has it?Click to expand...Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInspector Javert said: ↑Iconoclast said: ↑Icon...I answered...I just didn't tell you what you wanted to hear.
Get used to it.
Prior to getting married...I asked a lot of girls out:
They often said "no".
I don't accuse them of "not answering"....
They answered...they just didn't answer the way I wanted.
I didn't give you what you want.
So be it.
Adults know they don't always get what they want.
Grow up.
Yes, I know the implications Icon...
YOU DON'T
If by "carrying-on" you mean that I am overly verbose...
That's probably true, I try to find 300 different ways to say the same thing because I tend to assume people are too stupid to understand it. That's my fault....
But by "diversion" if you mean that I am avoiding the question in your O.P....
That is false....I am hitting it head on and directly and relevantly right at it's source.
You just don't like it.
Get used to disappointment.
You are falsely accusing me of "calling names".
I have not called anyone any "name" and it is a lie to say as much.
You owe me an apology for that false accusation. It is a lie.
I don't want it to "go away"... No one is hiding from your question. I want you understand the answer to it.Click to expand...Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Iconoclast said: ↑this is not about what is decreed.....that is another discussion.Click to expand...
Exactly the same discussion.
Your premise assumes that much.
If you fail to grasp that. I cannot help you.
individual Election unto salvation is a biblical truth...... do you believe the gospel is another question altogether.Click to expand...
You just said that one could be "elected to salvation" and that one could fail to "believe the gospel"...
at the same time....
Re-read your post Icon...
You are in knots.
That isn't true whether one is either an Arminian or a Calvinist....
Those who "believe the gospel" ARE "the elect"...
You just denied that in your post.
I told you to stop....
You should stop.
You are losing on every level.
what exists as a biblical fact.....and your trusting in it are two different issues.....from the Divine side it is certainClick to expand...
....from the human side people are asked...do you believe...Click to expand...
If it is certain from the "Divine side", than I will:
If not, then, I won't..
The "human side" <---whatever in Hades or pagan philosophy that means....
doesn't matter.
What the "Divine Side" has decreed is what shall assuredly come to pass.
That is all.
The fact that you don't like it right now is not my problem.
most of your ranting is irrationalClick to expand...
You just don't like it.
....I do not need to respond to such...Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Inspector Javert
here is your posting on this thread;
You are falsely accusing me of "calling names".
I have not called anyone any "name" and it is a lie to say as muchClick to expand...
2]it's simply that you either: Understand NOTHING about Calvinism
3]Are being deliberately obtuse
4] I won't state this option out loud.....
5]Let me explain the fundamentals of Calvinism and election according to Calvinism to you since you don't get them
6]I see you still need more tutoring into the fundamentals of Calvinism
7]You don't know the first thing about Calvinism do you Icon?
8]You don't understand the implications of the confession.....Or you are simply refusing to accept them.
9]If you find their answers "telling"...than you clearly don't understand Calvinism...as I could have told you that much from the get-go
10]since you aren't following
11]Grow up
12]Yes, I know the implications Icon...YOU DON'T -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Inspector Javert
.I cannot help you.Click to expand...
You just said that one could be "elected to salvation" and that one could fail to "believe the gospel"...
at the same time....Click to expand...
I posted this;
[individual Election unto salvation is a biblical truth]
You said I posted this-You just said that one could be "elected to salvationClick to expand...
then I said;
......[ do you believe the gospel is another question altogether]
you said it this way....
and that one could fail to "believe the gospel"...
this is incoherent on your part.
Re-read your post Icon...
You are in knots.Click to expand...
I told you to stop....
You should stop.
You are losing on every level.Click to expand...
So...what God decrees is "certain"...I'll buy that.
The "human side" <---whatever in Hades or pagan philosophy that means....
doesn't matterClick to expand...
sure it matters....God knows all the elect by name...from the human side..you do not.
The fact that you don't like it right now is not my problem.Click to expand... -
Icon, what I was referring to was two semantically equivalent statements:
If you say:
"Individual Election to salvation"
and I quote it as:
"Being elect to salvation".....
It's semantically equivalent.
You are getting in a tizzy about my quoting you in the active voice something you quoted in the passive voice.
That's not how adults converse Icon.
What I said was semantically equivalent, and I quoted you accurately. It's there for anyone to see. I detect that all you care about is "winning" some kind of argument with someone who is not a Calvinist...If I were contending that the sky is blue, you would debate it, because I'm not a Calvinist. If I argue that grass is (only when heathy) generally green, you would argue that "Kentucky 'Blue-grass' appears more bluish and not green." Have it your way....You'd argue with me if I debated that 2+2=4.....So here you go:
You win Icon. I'm wrong, you're right, and I shouldn't have said what I said. -
Inspector Javert said: ↑Icon, what I was referring to was two semantically equivalent statements:
If you say:
"Individual Election to salvation"
and I quote it as:
"Being elect to salvation".....
It's semantically equivalent.
You are getting in a tizzy about my quoting you in the active voice something you quoted in the passive voice.
That's not how adults converse Icon.
What I said was semantically equivalent, and I quoted you accurately. It's there for anyone to see. I detect that all you care about is "winning" some kind of argument with someone who is not a Calvinist...If I were contending that the sky is blue, you would debate it, because I'm not a Calvinist. If I argue that grass is (only when heathy) generally green, you would argue that "Kentucky 'Blue-grass' appears more bluish and not green." Have it your way....You'd argue with me if I debated that 2+2=4.....So here you go:
You win Icon. I'm wrong, you're right, and I shouldn't have said what I said.Click to expand... -
InTheLight said: ↑Once again I would like to thank God that he predestined me to be a non-Cal. Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!Click to expand...
What do Calvinist think of God ordaining millions to be non-cals???? -
steaver said: ↑:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
What do Calvinist think of God ordaining millions to be non-cals????Click to expand... -
Yeshua1 said: ↑Don't know if it is not a case where the bethren have hardened themselves off to it first though!Click to expand...
Brethren resisting God!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brethren defeating the will of God!!!!!!!
Brethren changing the predestination/ordination of God!!!!! No wait, that doesn't make any sense...............