The Fall of Man

This paranoid "all against me" tactic is the last resort of an argument that has utterly failed to respond to 'the details'.

In this case - Calvinism HAS ALREADY pointed to the DRAWING of God as the SOURCE of the power to ENABLE choice in lost sinners unnable to "really" choose on their own.

Failing to admit this obvious - blatant - incredibly apparent point -- RC seeks "another path".

How sad that such tactics should be all that is left to a failed Calvinist argument.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Blame us? Where in scripture do you find God blaming?

That which fails to meet the expectations of God is only at fault in doing so because of its FREE WILL to choose to be 'other than acceptable'.

You've got it all wrong. God does not blame us. He set the standard, we fail to meet the standard of our own free will, so instead of forcing us to comply with his standard, he simply accepts those who do comply, of their own free will, while allowing those who do not to "go their own way, in accordance with their own free will". That's what quality control is all about! The quality inspector does not blame the unacceptable item for not meeting the standard but the inspector simply does not "pass" the item as meeting the standard, and it is rejected into the 'unacceptable bin' for disposal.

The answer of one who does not know the truth. God set the standard, we have the choice of meeting that standard or not meeting that standard. God gives us everything that is necessary for us to meet the standard, but leaves it up to us to do so. His standard is FAITH in HIM. "Whosoever believeth in Him", meets the standard! "Whoever believeth not", fails to meet the standard. (John 3:16.18)

He allows us NO EXCUSES for not meeting His standard, because HE did all the work for us, and our part is the easiest thing a human can do. All that we have to do to meet the standard is to ACCEPT the gift that he offers us...everlasting life, through our faith. NO EXCUSES, because we can do nothing to effect the result! The only thing we can do to change our eternal destiny is the simple acceptance through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

Since Romans 9 "details" are "selectively" of some interest to Calvinists --

Part 1 of a 2 part post on Romans 9.

Paul will learn in a minute that God does not actually care for those that are not coming to Christ and neither should he (at least that is what our Calvinist bretheren would have us hope for).

Paul will learn later in the chapter that God never actually does all that work for those He cares nothing for. Paul will need to pipe down on this point since it appears that God's sovereignly chosen "Holy Nation" and "Royal priesthood" idea did not work. (At least that seems to be what our Calvinist brethren would have us believe).

Really good save on Paul's part for the Arminian idea - but utter failure for Calvinists - Since Calvinist presume that there are no changes - God's sovereign predestined will is being unfolded in history right on schedule. No failures, [no changes to the arbitrary selection process of election.

By this statement above - that would mean that spiritual Jews are the only ones God was EVER concerned about from the Start. By that logic then (since this still continues to be the case after the cross) then there would be NO CHANGE from the OT to NT system! Given the Calvinist model - this is simply THE system as given by God - "working as designed" so "no change needed" at the cross. (Unless of course Calvinists want to argue that God was designing the failure of his "Chosen" even though they are the "children of the promise" from day one)!!

So how does the Arminian view fare by comparison in this case? Very well indeed since The Arminian view anticipates/allows "changes" based on the failure of God's own elect/chosen/established church dues to free will. Adam and Eve - failed, and there was "a change" to what God had sovereignly started.

Then Israel (the Hebrew nation church sovereignly started by God) "failed" and there was "another change". Yet it is the "faithful" - those that choose belief in God and faith in His promises that remain in all the systems.

Really good example of foreknowledge here - but a real Calvinist problem since God willed Sarah to have a child and was apparently ALSO willing Sarah to laugh at God over it at the time. Obviously Sarah did NOT of her own free will choose such a thing in the model of Calvinism - since she never had free will to begin with (according to Calvin). At each turn so far - Calvinism is frustrated by the points highlighted.

Good example of God knowing the future. Although I am sure some Calvinists would point this out as God arbitrarily picking Jacob without any reference to the actual choices for obedience vs rebellion in the two men. However the text itself only deals with relationship between the two brothers - not good vs evil or love-vs-hate. The mother is told which Son will be dominant - which one will have the blessing.

13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

Interesting quote of Malachi AFTER both Jacob and Esau were dead and the history of Rebellion was fully manifest in Esau's descendants (and referenced in that chapter).

Would have worked MUCH better for Calvinism if that quote had come from something said before the twins were born, as if God has ALREADY decided to hate Esau arbitrarily (instead of not wishing for any to perish but for ALL to come to repentance). But that is not the source of the quote.

Instead of quoting a pre-birth event for Esau in the book of Genesis - Paul is speaking of the case in Malachi regarding the DESCENDANTS of Esau and Jacob - EDOM and Israel. He shows who each of them has played out their own rebellion or obedience toward God - and then how that has translated into their history. Rather than a pre-birth condemnation of Esau - this is a post-Nation evaluation of the History of two nations in Malachi 1:1-5

Paul appeals to the nature of the fact that God showed past-tense his actions toward the descendants of Esau who were in constant rebellion - and the descendants of Jacob.

And as Paul “begins” the letter to the Romans – he points out that God does this “without partiality” of ONE instead of ANOTHER. (the “very thing” that Calvinists would accuse God of doing).

So it “depends on God” and fortunately God “is not partial” – but rather – is just and fair in salvation towards ALL.

Here is the ideal Calvinist response to the Arminian claim that "God so loved the world" not just the arbitrarily selected "Few" of Matt 7.
Here we see that God "hardens" the heart in some cases. Taking an active role in that process, supposedly refutes the "loving God" concept that Arminian promote for "all mankind" – God so loving "The whole World" rather than just an arbitrarily select “few” etc.

Certainly if God is taking an active role in turning some arbitrarily selected "many" (from Matt 7) away from the light - away from the gospel, hardening them against God or leaving them UNNABLE to embrace salvation - He can not possibly love them as the Arminian "God so loved the World" claim maintains. In fact the Calvinist future scenario would definitely be confirmed if this Calvinist interpretation were actually “true” rather than simply imagined..

(At this point - It must be admitted that there are some Arminians that do take the stance that man is "neutral" and can simply choose whether to yield to the Gospel call or to be "hardened" against God - of his own free will.)

Calvinist prefer to think of this text as claiming that God is making the "choice for you" in hardening your heart, instead of loving you and drawing you to him.. And Pharaoh in the case above is offered as "proof" of Calvinism’s “partial God” argument. Partial towards some and indifferent to the rest. Let’s see if their guesswork will hold up.

So far so good for Calvinism! -- Perfect Calvinist point here - the chapter should END here to preserve the Calvinist point and not wreck it. It appears that maybe God is claiming that it is not man's choice - but rather God's choice to NOT have Mercy on the many, and to harden them instead.

But wait a minute!

#1. Whatever happened to "Total depravity"? Why would God need to "harden" anyone? Aren't we "ALL" sinners, and all by nature inclined to be "hardened" against God? Wouldn't the "outside act" of God only be needed if He wanted to "change" our sinful response to something other than the "totally depraved" hardening that we ourselves are always going to adopt? Is Calvinism trying to have it "both ways" on this point? Indeed this is our first clue that something is not right in Calvinism’s spin for this text.

#2 As pointed out in the previous note - this approach only applies to that subgroup within the Arminian camp that believe that man is "neutral" and that do not accept the "totally depraved" aspect of our sinful nature. Only in that context COULD there be "hardening" by God! And that is a starting point that even Calvinists “Admit” is false. But if that sometimes-Arminian starting point WERE true – then this “hardening by God of NEUTRAL souls” would indeed be the devious and wicked plot "against" man based on “partiality alone” that Calvinists imagine it to be.

It would “show” active dislike/hatred/evil-intent by God against a being that is otherwise neutral and might otherwise have chosen God if God had not actively "hardened them" of His own choice, bias and partiality! But such an internally-self-conflicted Calvinist scenario – is not the case.

#3. The softening principle of scripture:

Isaiah 26:9-10

This is true in general - it is not a specific statement about just - Israel.

#4. The hardening principle when man rejects God's correction

 

Romans 9 part II


However - as if that is not bad enough for the case Calvinism tries to make out of Romans 9 - Paul goes on to show that "instead" of the "expected" Calvinist model of God only having mercy and kindness upon vessels of mercy - while showing wrath to those that He knows will never accept salvation - the opposite point is argued by Paul.

Calvinism claims that God only has mercy on the "few " of Matt 7 that he knows to be saved - on the arbitrarily select "few" - the chosen.

Romans 9 was supposed to be "Limited atonement in action"! IF only Calvinists could find a way to ended the chapter before vs 22!!
How much easier it would have been to turn a blind eye to the full teaching of the chapter!

Ooooops! Notice that this does Not say "God does Not have Mercy on vessels He knows to be destined for hell." Instead Paul argues that the case depends on God who HAS mercy - (ok but He has mercy on just the "few" selected ones - right?)

Romans 9 shows God Having mercy on the Lost as well as the saved - this actually negates the whole limited atonement thing for Calvinism!!
Notice the patience of God in Romans 2:4 and 9:22

He DID SO - for what reason? He Endured with Much patience - SO that He could MAKE KNOWN the riches of His Glory??

Hold it. How does it convey the "riches of God's Glory" to the "vessels of mercy" - to show mercy and kindness and longsuffering upon those that God foreknows will ultimately reject Him?
In the Calvinist model – God is only “tricking the saints by His apparent concern for the lost”.
In the Arminian model – God is serious. His effort for the lost – is real.

This IS the Arminian argument that the JUSTICE of God is shown by His compassion, kindness and efforts to reach the lost – "I will Draw ALL unto ME" John 12:32. Paul is making the case that in the EFFORT God makes toward those that He KNOWS will not be saved by their own choice - God is REVEALING his Glory to the saints that ARE saved.
The saints are SEEING God be patient and caring EVEN of the Lost - and the text says that REVEALS to them - His Glory.

Limited atonement fails here - and so does the concept that God arbitrarily predestined them to be lost because the combination of longsuffering and effort for the lost would not "show the riches of Gods glory" IF it could be proven that God arbitrarily predestined their failure.

God is "Not willing that ANY should perish"2Peter 3 and Paul declares that God is "Calling all men everywhere to REPENT" - but yet He still knows the end from the beginning and so - STILL chooses to endure with much patience those who will be destroyed.

(And that principle "of the God that never changes" remains true EVEN in the fires of Rev 14:10-11 where they are burned "IN our Presence". The Presence of Christ "AND His Holy Ones")

Oh no WORSE for the Calvinist because INSTEAD of selecting the saved just from the Soevereignly CHOSEN NATION - He is going to BOTH the CHOSEN (Holy Nation, Royal Priesthood) and the non-chosen GENTILES.

More BAD news - He claims that He SHOWS mercy EVEN to the finally-lost FOR the benefit of the saved. He shows that LIMITTING His mercy JUST to the saved would not be as much benefit FOR THE SAVED as EXTENDING it to BOTH groups. Hmmmm what a devastating blow to Calvinism. We commend Paul - the inspired author of the book of Romans for showing details that reveal God showing His MERCY and KINDNESS to BOTH the chosen and the non-chosen. B]For it is the KINDNESS of God that LEADS you to repentance"[/b] Rom 2:4.

{Wow - NOW God is really trouncing the entire sovereignly CHOSEN/ROYAL/HOLY nation by CONTRAST with the NOT-CHOSEN Gentiles. End of Calvinism.) How could that be?? IN the Model of Calvinism what is "supposed to happen" is the utter disregard for those "NOT Chosen" and "should have been" sole concern - and sovereignly directed success for the "Chosen", sovereignly elect and chosen at Sinai.


Notice the definition for "LAW of Righteousness" and how that is contrasted to the gentiles who DID "attain Righteousness". The term "LAW of Righteousness" being pursued by the Jews is a :Law pursued APART from FAITH and "as though it were by WORKS".

It is clearly introduced as - apart from Christ, apart from Faith, Stumbling over Christ rather than receiving Him - because Christ declares that all are sinners and all need a savior.

==================================================

In Short -

I can't believe that anyone who accepts the total depravity of man can argue for God "hardening" the heart. That's like saying "God sees that man is hardening his heart against God and acting wickedly - but not wickedly enough - so God hardens the heart of man in addition".

Some Arminians argue that man is "neutral" and in THAT CONTEXT alone - God coming in and hardening the heart of some - would be "unfair" since this act of God would preclude them from choosing life - on their own if God had not hardened them.


In other words you would have to BE that specific type of Arminian to swallow the Calvinist argument that is attempted there.

As it is - Jerermiah 5:3 and Isaiah 26:9 explain this Arminian concept perfectly.


In Jer 5:3 the Chosen Holy Nation of Israel is directed by God's judgments to turn from evil - and by rejecting "God's correction" they harden their hearts in concert with that act of God. The Holy Nation, sovereignly selected - the chosen nation - harden their hearts.

Isaiah 26:9 and Hebrews 12 make the point that it is by sending the rod, the judgments that God turns the heart from evil. Those whom He loves He chastens. That is also the SAME process that hardens the heart of the one who chooses to "reject correctoin" Jer 5:3 and so we see in Exodus 7-10 that Pharaohs "heart was hardened" and "Pharaoh hardened his heart" 8:15,22 and also "God hardened Pharaohs heart" via the judgments sent and the correction "rejected".

 

Hello Bob.

Thanks man that looks interesting.

Yes Bob, awful as that may be to you God is Sovereign.

Don't blame us blame Him, that's where your emphasis should be, "Why does God still blame us for who resists His will?"
Answer that with scripture Bob. A thing you skip I see.

I'm sure that I am not regarded as a Calvinist by the Calvinists and might be that I go too far for some but I think Sovereign means Sovereign and that is where I am stuck. To imagine Sovereign means not Sovereign leaves me nonplussed to be honest with you. What is God if He is not Sovereign? Not God.
(so no free will in Calvinism's universe) And when was it that you last heard a Calvinist say there was no free will? Either Adam had free will, they say, or there was some sort of allowing and permitting of another person to be sovereign so that they could take the rap for the fall.
You have a blind spot concerning sovereignty being a democractic sort of bloke.

But you are not listening. Many Calvinists go to extraordinary lengths and strain every nerve to not get accused by others of saying that God is the Author of sin. How do you not notice that? Many Calvinists agree with you that God is not the Author of sin. Since this is the case and choices were made by someone other than God then I believe that makes God not Sovereign and therefore not God. That word Sovereign in conjunction with my God means Sovereign. But that's my God. Perfect!

But that is my idea of Calvinism and your idea of Calvinism but not that of Calvinists!
With my belief I can look at the world and know for a certainty that it is God that is causing all things but with your belief God is disconnected. A reacting trailing God but my God leads He is the Rock. He is The Sovereign.
To tell you the truth every other concept of God is totally alien to me and I reject all but God is Sovereign and does as He pleases.

Do you mean a wolf dressed in sheeps' clothing?
I used to think I was an orthodox Calvinist until I came to the discussion forums! Now I'm not so sure orthodox is quite the right word to describe me anymore. HaHa! I'll leave that up to others but I shall never submit to a theology where God does not get us to ask, "Then why does He still blame us for who resists His will?" And you dare to talk back? Yes so do most of the Calvinists with the permittings and allowings that usurps the Mighty One.

So you are telling me that their silence against my beliefs shows they agree with me? You sure? I'm not. They have disagreed with me.
(Are you trying to say that Adam had a "free will" before the fall? You won't get any argument from me or any other Calvinist. (rc))that would make me non-Calvinist then because I'm stuck with God being Sovereign. I believe God elected a bunch of angels and said to them, "You shall not fall!" No one ever complains about the violation of their wills. What free will claims is that we can stand without God but He never built us to stand by ourselves. He works all things in us and through us to His glory. Every word from our mouths originated in Him. The Great Puppeteer! The whole of creations obeys His will and dances to His tune. There is One God. He is Sovereign. Beat that! One Sovereign.

Yes they do! They try to distance God from sin and by doing so unseats Sovereignty.

I like your style man and you really must get around sometime to explaining how it is possible for God to be Sovereign while men decide their own future. This is the heart of it. Betcha can't boy.

Who says they are extreme? I read your skit on Romans so you prove you are not fit to judge Calvinism.

john.

 

Thanks man that looks interesting.

Yes Bob, awful as that may be to you God is Sovereign.

Don't blame us blame Him, that's where your emphasis should be, "Why does God still blame us for who resists His will?"
</font>[/QUOTE]JohnP

I am very glad to meet a Calvinist who is comfortable BEING a Calvinist and admitting to what Calvinism is teaching rather then running and hiding from it when it exposes its raw side as in the Calvinist Future Scenario!!

Can you help me with something? Tell me WHY the scenario that so perfectly illusrates Calvinism and that you so openly and faithfully defend is considered to be "WRONG In EVERY DETAIL" by some Calvinists on this board.

What is up with that? Are they just not very comfortable with their "inner Calvinist" or is the problem that they are Calvinists with "an Inner Arminian"??

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bob Ssid --
Calvinism can not allow God to create a means to disconnect Himself from DIRECT responsibility for everything...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that your approach is the most logical and consistent "God is always Sovereign" path for Calvinism. Some Calvinists make him sovereign over the salvation of the FEW of Matt 7 but then leave Him being "less sovereign" in other realms so they don't end up with your conclusion.

#1. What "brand of Calvinism" allows them to do that?

#2. What flavor are you using such that you stay consistent , on point and willing to admit to Calvinism's arguments two-days in a row without having to be re-argued back into admitting to and then defeninding Calvinism??


In Christ,

Bob

 

I just can't believe it! An honest Calvinist when it comes to admitting to Calvinism "all the time" not just when they get argued into it!!

I am just so happy I think I will start copying posts for my files!!

Long Live JohnP!!

 

John you have been soooo helpful it is only fair that I respond to the one and only question you have been asking...

I gladly oblige. It will be interesting to see an actual Calvinist (who stays Calvinist ALL the time) debating the point with me.


========================================
quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is right - Calvinism can not allow God to create a means to disconnect Himself from DIRECT responsibility for everything (so no free will in Calvinism's universe). Perfect!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure thing - as I said in my review of Romans 9 this is the part where the Calvinist God forgot to stop the chapter at vs 21.

Ooooops! Notice that this does Not say "God does Not have Mercy on vessels He knows to be destined for hell." Instead Paul argues that the case depends on God who HAS mercy - (ok but He has mercy on just the "few" selected ones - right?)

Romans 9 shows God Having mercy on the Lost as well as the saved - this actually negates the whole limited atonement thing for Calvinism!!
Notice the patience of God in Romans 2:4 and 9:22

He DID SO - for what reason? He Endured with Much patience - SO that He could MAKE KNOWN the riches of His Glory??

Hold it. How does it convey the "riches of God's Glory" to the "vessels of mercy" - to show mercy and kindness and longsuffering upon those that God foreknows will ultimately reject Him?
In the Calvinist model – God is only “tricking the saints by His apparent concern for the lost”.
In the Arminian model – God is serious. His effort for the lost – is real.

This IS the Arminian argument that the JUSTICE of God is shown by His compassion, kindness and efforts to reach the lost – "I will Draw ALL unto ME" John 12:32. Paul is making the case that in the EFFORT God makes toward those that He KNOWS will not be saved by their own choice - God is REVEALING his Glory to the saints that ARE saved.
The saints are SEEING God be patient and caring EVEN of the Lost - and the text says that REVEALS to them - His Glory.

Limited atonement fails here - and so does the concept that God arbitrarily predestined them to be lost because the combination of longsuffering and effort for the lost would not "show the riches of Gods glory" IF it could be proven that God arbitrarily predestined their failure.

God is "Not willing that ANY should perish"2Peter 3 and Paul declares that God is "Calling all men everywhere to REPENT" - but yet He still knows the end from the beginning and so - STILL chooses to endure with much patience those who will be destroyed.

(And that principle "of the God that never changes" remains true EVEN in the fires of Rev 14:10-11 where they are burned "IN our Presence". The Presence of Christ "AND His Holy Ones")

Oh no WORSE for the Calvinist because INSTEAD of selecting the saved just from the Soevereignly CHOSEN NATION - He is going to BOTH the CHOSEN (Holy Nation, Royal Priesthood) and the non-chosen GENTILES.

More BAD news - He claims that He SHOWS mercy EVEN to the finally-lost FOR the benefit of the saved. He shows that LIMITTING His mercy JUST to the saved would not be as much benefit FOR THE SAVED as EXTENDING it to BOTH groups. Hmmmm what a devastating blow to Calvinism. We commend Paul - the inspired author of the book of Romans for showing details that reveal God showing His MERCY and KINDNESS to BOTH the chosen and the non-chosen. B]For it is the KINDNESS of God that LEADS you to repentance"[/b] Rom 2:4.

{Wow - NOW God is really trouncing the entire sovereignly CHOSEN/ROYAL/HOLY nation by CONTRAST with the NOT-CHOSEN Gentiles. End of Calvinism.) How could that be?? IN the Model of Calvinism what is "supposed to happen" is the utter disregard for those "NOT Chosen" and "should have been" sole concern - and sovereignly directed success for the "Chosen", sovereignly elect and chosen at Sinai.


Notice the definition for "LAW of Righteousness" and how that is contrasted to the gentiles who DID "attain Righteousness". The term "LAW of Righteousness" being pursued by the Jews is a :Law pursued APART from FAITH and "as though it were by WORKS".

It is clearly introduced as - apart from Christ, apart from Faith, Stumbling over Christ rather than receiving Him - because Christ declares that all are sinners and all need a savior.

==================================================

In Short -

I can't believe that anyone who accepts the total depravity of man can argue for God "hardening" the heart. That's like saying "God sees that man is hardening his heart against God and acting wickedly - but not wickedly enough - so God hardens the heart of man in addition".

Some Arminians argue that man is "neutral" and in THAT CONTEXT alone - God coming in and hardening the heart of some - would be "unfair" since this act of God would preclude them from choosing life - on their own if God had not hardened them.


In other words you would have to BE that specific type of Arminian to swallow the Calvinist argument that is attempted there.

As it is - Jerermiah 5:3 and Isaiah 26:9 explain this Arminian concept perfectly.


In Jer 5:3 the Chosen Holy Nation of Israel is directed by God's judgments to turn from evil - and by rejecting "God's correction" they harden their hearts in concert with that act of God. The Holy Nation, sovereignly selected - the chosen nation - harden their hearts.

Isaiah 26:9 and Hebrews 12 make the point that it is by sending the rod, the judgments that God turns the heart from evil. Those whom He loves He chastens. That is also the SAME process that hardens the heart of the one who chooses to "reject correctoin" Jer 5:3 and so we see in Exodus 7-10 that Pharaohs "heart was hardened" and "Pharaoh hardened his heart" 8:15,22 and also "God hardened Pharaohs heart" via the judgments sent and the correction "rejected".

</font>[/QUOTE]I of course am sovereignly ordained by God to continually expose these flaws in Calvinism. He IS Sovereign after all.

At least we BOTH agree on that one!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ooooops! Notice that this does Not say "God does Not have Mercy on vessels He knows to be destined for hell." -- because for the true blue Calvinist IT SHOULD say that the only ones God is working with in mercy and love -- are the ELECT!!

The other thing is that it does NOT say "So it depends on God who HAS Mercy (on the elect) and Does NOT HAVE Mercy (on the ultimately lost)"

Instead Paul argues that the case depends on God who HAS mercy - And then WHERE do we see him showing patience kindness and mercy??? on BOTH??!!!


(ok but He has mercy on just the "few" selected ones - right?)

Romans 9 shows God Having mercy on the Lost as well as the saved - this actually negates the whole limited atonement thing for Calvinism!! God is not supposed to be working IN THE FAVOR of the lost! HE supposedly does not CARE for them.

Remember -- "Sure I COULD have IF I had CARED"

And yete we see the patience of God in Romans 2:4 and 9:22

Oh yes -- and we "see it" here as well...

God is sorrowful and GRIEVES for the lost and for the fact that He has done so much to win them - yet they TURN away.

Parable of the Landowner

Yes indeed the Sovereign God Sovereignly chose FREE WILL for His created universe of intelligent beings!

And then we see God CHOOSING SORROW and concern compassion and love for the LOST -- "ALL my compassions are stirred up" says the Creator of ALL mankind when confronted with the case of the lost.

And here I am -- sovereignly ordained to continually expose the flaws of Calvinism -- what a wonderful Sovereign God!!

John P -- when you choose to debate me - you are in fact debating the sovereign will of God who directs me.

(At least we BOTH agree on one thing)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

Yet you claim I am ...posting extreme Calvinist positions.... Make up your mind please or the two days in a row explains you.
"Why does God still blame us for who resists His will?"
Answer that with scripture Bob. A thing you skip again I see.
I asked for an answer concerning Romans 9:19 again and again you answer everything else but 9:19-21.

You have no answer to the verses I mentioned I see. Sure thing - as I said in my review of Romans 9 this is the part where the Calvinist God forgot to stop the chapter at vs 21.
So if He had stopped at verse 21 you say then that would prove limited atonement? Yes or no?
Most of your post is just run of the mill Arminian stuff and was debunked long ago.

You see you do not understand Total Depravity but pretend it is what you want it to be then argue from there.

I did not choose to debate you but God chose this. HaHa! That is fact. God causes all things to be. I know who I am talking to, the God that directs your thoughts. This is true of all things. Everything that impinges on my senses impinge on my senses as a direct result of God talking to me. A sort of running commentary on His dealings with me.
It's true for you and me and Wes and everybody. It is God's game and we are just the pieces moved around by Him. (At least we BOTH agree on one thing) If that is what you mean then yes we do but I doubt very much if we agree on this, where's your free will gone? Mist.

"Why does God still blame us for who resists His will?"
Are you ready to take me on with the relevant passage? Romans 9:19-21.

The argument Paul is using should lead you to this question, "Why does God still blame us for who resists His will?" but it doesn't with you. It is a question that must be answered not skipped over and forgotten in a mass of scripture. The question needs answering otherwise you show that you have missed something. If you do not reach this conclusion and question then you must be off track.
The answer Paul gives is ignored by you is this not so? "Who are you to talk back to God?" "Why does God still blame us...?" "Who are you to talk back to God?"
Get out of that not around it.

john.

 

The "Future Calvinist Scenario" does not say "God is Despot" or that "God is the author of sin" -- but you do.

I do not need that level of Calvinism to make my point in the Calvinist future Scenario - however I am happy to have such open confessions as long as all other Calvinists are not going to double-back on it and call it "extreme".

Wrong.

"Again" I show that 9:15-16 already debunks the spin Calvinism needs for 19-21

But what is "Worse" is that in 9:22 God shows that it is the mercy kindness compassion and long suffering of God includes "Vessels of WRATH prepared for destruction"!! -- The VERY Point Calvinism had so hoped to avoid!!

Calvinism NEEDED the focus to be "Mercy on the FEW of Matt 7 but NO MERCY on the MANY of Matt 7".

And they were totally debunked!

the chapter did not END with 9:21 as CAlvinism had hoped. That the ANSWER is found not ONLY in 9:15-16 AND in 22.

Nope. Because God already said "God so loved the WORLD... REALLY"! and God says in 1John 4 that Christ was given as "The Savior of the WORLD" and God says in John 6 "The Life I give FOR THE WORLD is my own flesh" and God already said in 2 Peter 3 "God is NOT willing for ANY to Perish but for ALL to come to repentance" and God already said that Christ is "The Atoning Sacrifice for OUR SIN and not for OUR sin only but for the Sins of the WHOLE WORLD" in 1John 2:2 and ...

But if Rom 9:19-21 were the "only text in all of scripture" with nothing before and nothing after (as Calvinism so often needs to cast its proofs) THEN Calvinism would have a leg to stand on.

IF Rom 9:21 had ended the chapter and 9:19 started it without GIVING the 9:15-16 and 9:22 ANSWER -- then CAlvinism could simply "make up the answer" for 9:21 (as it does today).

As has already been quoted (and omitted from your response) the 9:15-16 and 9:22 ANSWER to 9:21 is precisely what Calvinism "hopes to avoid".

But God Sovereignly ordains that I should point out to you - that answer from chapter 9 as God's OWN ANSWER showing that it is God who "DOES have MERCY" not the Calvinist idea of despot god "WHO DOES NOT HAVE MERCY" on the MANY of Matt 7.

Instead of God DRAWING ALL (John 12:32) and "So Loving the WORLD" John 3:16 -- Calvinism is hoping to find a text saying "God has mercy on just the FEW and so loves the FEW and draws only the FEW"... Sadly for Calvinists - that "calvinist bible" is missing.

See? We now have a true debate with your consistent view of Calvinism and Arminianism!

What a treat!

In Christ,

Bob

 

From God to all man!

 

Hello Bob.

Now that is a very strange sentence man! You mean I can say as I please as long as all the other Calvinists agree with me? HaHa! Is that a shut up or something?

john.

 

Nope. I am happy to to have your view be "THE View" because it is certainly the most consistent for Calvinism.

It's just that every time someone (on the Arminian side) says "well according to Calvinism..." The Calvinists try to hide Calvinism under a rock (a continual shell game) denying almost everything already posted.

(I guess you can detect a little frustration).

If they are going to come back and say "everything John P said is not Calvinism" it limits the extent to which I could use your posts with them (at least a little).

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

You want to use my Calvinism against my brothers and sisters? Nice one. I said I liked your style didn't I. Well 'johnp says' won't wash with a Calvinist, scripture rules us/them/me. Scripture alone us/them/me.

You mean they should be believing what you believe Calvinism teaches? Yes or no. Honest question. (I guess you can detect a little frustration). You mean they should be believing what you believe Calvinism teaches or they seem like moving targets? Can't pin them down. They cannot deny what is written can they? Maybe you can't get your head around it. Show me where and I will look and see for you.

RO 9:22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?
Look at that verse properly and you will see God in a way you have never believed possible. I stand in awe there.

So He could show His wrath wrathfully He lets those prepared for destruction heap up their sins. You should pray to God that He has mercy on you. That's evangelistic and general.

What do you say about it? But what is "Worse" is that in 9:22 God shows that it is the mercy kindness compassion and long suffering of God includes "Vessels of WRATH prepared for destruction"!! -- The VERY Point Calvinism had so hoped to avoid!!
Mercy? I see no mercy towards those prepared for destruction. Where's the kindness in letting those that are going to get whacked get whacked even harder because God wants us to see Him as He is not how we want Him to be. Sweet Jesus? He's your worse nightmare realtime or He loves you and neither of those two things are our fault! But don't hold that against Calvinism.
Destined before the creation of the world to be in Heaven or in Hell. Conceived in sin and completely dominated by God's will without a by-your-leave. So why does He still blame us then?
So God, who chose to show His wrath, He did not have to but chose to show His wrath, was long suffering. Why? So He could really show us what wrath means man. They go to Hell so God can show us what He is like in wrath that's all and they are going with a full measure to pay for just so He can show us what He is really like. He is like a Despot. He might not be very nice.
Look at that verse properly and you will see God in a way you have never believed possible. Now you know how I see Him. I stand in awe. I have not heard the like so don't hold this against Calvinism. Fear Him.

He chose to didn't He? You lose. He chose to show us His wrath when He did not have to. All could be saved but He chose to send some to Hell so He could show those He loves what they missed but for His glorious grace. 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory...


john.

 

"Against"???! "Against"!!!

You mean that it is "AGAINST" Calvinism to post your views as though they are valid Calvinist statements - clearly observable???!!!

Are you claiming it "against Calvinists" to expect them to own up to these as legitimate and valid within the realm of Calvinism GIVEN Calvinism's insistence on a kind of "sovereignty" that does not ALLOW free Will? (Indeed your positions are the MOST consistent among them!)

Or are you claiming that the "slippery calvinist dodges and hides his views under every rock" and that these slippery tactics are the stock and trade of Calvinists and I should not be allowed to limit other Calvinists by restricting their freedom to dodge and practice the "shell game"?? You seem to view it as a threat to shell-gaming Calvinists that your posts should ever be given as "Calvinism -- (Indeed Calvinism out in the light of day for all to see and objectively review")??

Are you actually ADMITTING to the "shell game" they play with Calvinism and arguing that I should NOT use your statements as REAL unchanging Calvinism with DETAILS observable by all and NOT shifting as the sands???

Are you sure you want to go on record with that kind of position - claiming your definitions of Calvinism are in fact "Against" Calvinists???

Notice that when I quote Calvinists I EXPECT them to OWN UP to Calvinism -- not to play shell games and try to HIDE CAlvinism under every convenient rock.

IN Christ,

Bob

[ June 06, 2005, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

How much LSD did you take before you became a Christian icthus?

 

For I see your instability...

 

quote:Bob said --
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they are going to come back and say "everything John P said is not Calvinism" it limits the extent to which I could use your posts with them (at least a little).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Calvinists try to hide Calvinism under a rock (a continual shell game) denying almost everything already posted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see you yourself are not above "the shell game".

The point remains. Your attempts at obfuscation not withstanding.

And your twist-and-bend of saying in the above that your OWN words are now MY DEFINITION of Calvinism that I am forcing on other Calvinists - exposes your "Shell gaming" for all to read.

Nice going!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Tulip is correct, although I fight the reformers all the time...on the deep things not the basics as you harp on about all the time...