T.U.L.I.P

Mar 31, 2008

T.U.L.I.P

This is the second portion of Amazing Grace. Today’s modern evangelical church puts forth a negative view of the Doctrines of Grace. There is absolutely no doctrine taught in today’s church. When Christians do not study biblical doctrine for themselves, as a result of the weak teaching, they will usually believe in freewill, be against what is called Calvinism, or have absolutely no knowledge of the subject. Today’s pastors, really don’t want the people to understand deep biblical teaching. The average pastor states that they teach the word of God at a 5th grade level so “everyone can understand.” Christians should be take this as an insult! Dear Christian, why is it that the doctrines of grace, are concealed? Where does the negative view of Calvinism originate? It is time to break new ground in the faith once and for all delivered to the saints! See the second clip on the topic of Limited Atonement. The video is posted in the comments section. Let us grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ!

58 Comments, Comment or Ping

Mario Herrera

Mar 31st, 2008
Espiridion "Speedy" Camez

Onward Christian Soldiers!!!!!

Apr 1st, 2008
Tand

This post may be more appropriate in the “Those that have ears” section, but I can’t bring myself to interrupt the John/Chad conversation.

What keeps striking me in the Calvinist-Arminian debates, both those posted here and those I’ve participated in, is the lack of spiritual credibility the Calvinist representative usually brings to the table IMO. (I am neither.)

You think it’s the most biblical thought-system, fine, I respect that. But if you sincerely think God’s truth is that the numerical majority of humanity could be redeemed but is condemned instead to a (just) eternity of suffering for (good) reasons we can’t fathom, you had better convince me you’re up nights crying your eyes out over it. Or that you were once, and that the peace you have now was hard-won with the Lord. The more comfortable you sound, the more I am convinced you have no inkling of what fire you’re playing with, no concept of what suffering and tragedy you’re playing word-games with.

And I gotta say, guys, most of the posts here on this subject are disturbingly comfortable. Effective, I admit, for rallying the troops and articulating the doctrinal distinctives, and I understand this site is primarily for rallying the troops. But really, not even a whiff of compassion? And it surprises you that even when you out-debate with Arminians, they don’t change their minds? It’s because if that’s what being right looks like, they’d rather be wrong.

Apr 1st, 2008
Mario

Tand,

How is “spirituality” displayed? And how is compassion displayed? Please remember that I was a former Arminian who repudiated God’s Sovereignty. If we had no urgency toward others, we would not be here.

Remember that Christ was murdered for speaking the truth. This is what speaking the truth in love means. It is not about any two individuals going at over a theology. Our main purpose is to reach those whom God is working on. Our God is sovereign and holds us far more accountable. The fact He is sovereign magnifies our responsibility. We are not concerned about being liked by the majority. Christ warned us if they hated me, they will also hate you.

We are not here to be liked or popular. We are here to declare the Truth as revealed in Scripture by the Triune God of Israel. The purpose here is not to debate Calvinism/Arminianism. The ultimate goal is to eradicate humanistic thought from the lives of believers to, by grace, submit to the ultimate sovereignty of God.

“lack of spiritual credibility the Calvinist representative usually brings to the table IMO” Tand, Can you define what “spiritual credibility” is?

Our comfort comes in the fact that God is working out His plan for our lives. We press on in ministry with His purposes in mind. We do these things because He is working in His people. We put forth biblical truth and trust the Lord for the results. We are not concerned with pleasing man or making sure he will feel good when reading biblical information. Our aim is that God would use us to convict those whom God is working on. I have plenty of people perishing in my family, who I pray for. I do infact pray for those in my shere of influence. I hope you are doing the same.

“The more comfortable you sound, the more I am convinced you have no inkling of what fire you’re playing with, no concept of what suffering and tragedy you’re playing word-games with”

Please understand that our comfort comes from the person and work of Christ! The Triune God of Scripture is actively saving and sanctifying His people. Not one of those who are called will escape His grasp! It is a privilege to be able to be an instrument for His glory. If the work rested on our performance, what sorry men we would be! But since the willing and the doing comes from Christ alone, we press forward with confidence! We are content to give the Lord Jesus Christ all of the glory!

It is those who don’t understand the spiritual things that have no idea of the fire they are playing with! We do this because there are many going into eternal destruction. Specially those who think they are spiritual and religious and on their way to hell! This things can be judged by the doctrine held by believers. Examine some of their pages and you’ll see what I mean. Either Christ is Lord of all, or not Lord at all! He is alone is worthy, He is our Captain, and we press forward in this New Reformation strong as He goes before us.

No word games here! Just pure biblical truth! God will use it to His glory! I don’t understand what “disturbingly comfortable” means? We are very comfortable because they are according to Scripture. I must ask, is it you that is uncomfortable as you read them?

This site is intended to equip the saints, taking them to a deeper knowledge of the person and work of Christ. Our aim is to lead others to biblical thinking for what to believe and how to live the Christian faith.

“Not even a whiff of compassion” Tand, we do this because we are deeply concerned with the churches spiritual condition. So again, define what you mean by “whiff of compassion.”

Our goal is not to win debates. We cannot change anyone’s mind. It is the power of the Holy Spirit who convicts and changes minds and lives.

“If that’s what being right looks like, they’d rather be wrong.” Again, why do you project these thoughts to others? This ministry is being used to shed light on Scripture! We see the blessings in the lives of others. What concerns me is what you are thinking. Many people do say, “if that is the God you serve, I want nothing to do with Him, that is not the God I serve!” This is grevious! You what though, I snared the same words at one time, but in His grace, the Lord revealed the fullness of the Truth found in Scripture and set me free from false humility, legalism, and works based righteousness! To this I say hallelujah!!!!!! We can be set free to worship God as He ought to be, in Spirit and in Truth! Do I fall short? You bet! I am just a crooked stick God uses to draw straight lines. All of this is by His grace alone. What do you say?

Apr 1st, 2008
Mario

Oh, scrap the theological titles. We don’t focus on “Calvinism and Armenianism,” per say. We are concerned with taking the saints back to Scripture above and beyond the failed reasonings of humanism which have never led anyone to the Truth of God as revealed in Scripture.

Apr 1st, 2008
Ashley

I totally agree with Mario. I too was a arminian most of my Christian life but my father convinced me through scripture that it was wrong. Ok I debated him for a while but because it was Scriptual I eventually believed and there is no turning back. In fact I believed I have grown so much since I’ve come to accept it as truth. So there are arminians who come to see the truth and “change their minds” because they know its biblical. Was my father wrong in trying to help me patch up the wholes in my Christian doctrine? Of course not. There is nothing wrong with correcting someone especially when comes to God’s Word and it is dealing with God’s Sovereignty.

Apr 1st, 2008
Glenn Hendrickson

just a question about a statement you made….

Where do you get the statistic that “The average pastor states that they teach the word of God at a 5th grade level”?

Thanks

Other than that, the video is great! Keep on keepin’ on!

Apr 1st, 2008
Mario

Glenn,

It did not originate with me. I’d have to find a source. I know it is what we were taught as part of the school of ministry. I don’t know Glenn, can the level go any lower, look at the condition of today’s church. But, if you don’t believe this, I will find a source for the quote.

I do find it interesting that of all that was said, this is what stood out to you. Let us keep on keeping on!

Apr 1st, 2008
agogley

Awesome Video! I want more!!!

Tand: My spiritual resume isn’t good enough? Please tell me how to beef it up…

I was also raised in Arminian theology but thankfully God led me to the truth! And releasing free will from my vocabulary wasn’t done without great resistance by my sinful nature.

Frankly, your evaluation of a Calvinist’s compassion is misdirected. Arminian or Calvinist, we should all be extremely conscious of the vast majority of people who are going to hell. We literally walk amongst the dead. But if I were an Arminian, I would be without hope because I know that certain friends and family, no matter how much I cajole them, would never submit to Christ if it were up to their free will. As an Arminian, why bother praying for others to be saved? After all, God wont override their free will. But as a Calvinist, I know that it is God who draws people and that he can save my family and friends for whom I pray.

Apr 1st, 2008
Glenn Hendrickson

it’s not that I believe or disbelieve it. If I’m not mistaken I’ve heard Dr. Bob say something similar on at least on occasion. I guess it would seem like a cheep-shot to say that unless there was an actual study behind it with averages (as you said) and statistics of some kind. you know?

If you could find a source I would be most appreciative. Perhaps the school could provide some sources.

Apr 1st, 2008
katelaben

If you guys are the cream of the crop, why doesn’t your pastor ever speak at these conferences; Sheppherd’s, Desiring God, or on this video?

Apr 1st, 2008
Greg

R C Sproul in quote said: “John Calvin said, that no theologian is ever more than 80 percent right”. When discussing theology the striving towards the goal of understanding the truth of God’s word systematically and in practical application we need to understanding that no man has ever got it ‘right’. Heaven will correct all our imperfections in this area. This does not mean that we cannot know the truth but that our knowledge of it will continue to grow all our lives. The ongoing debate between the disparate protagonists is an interesting one in which both cannot be right but neither must either succumb to rigid opinions. Opinions are the base for wars, convictions are the base for debate, convincing the listener and must at all times be based upon objective revelation and not subjective opinions. I strive not to improve my opinions but to understand God’s opinions (thoughts). The one thing missing from the various discussions to date is definition of words. Perhaps also the basis of the debate is lacking an axiom which would refer all the parties to a common foundation. May I suggest that the Axiom should be: “The Bible alone is the word of God” and its corollary which is “The Bible alone is Truth” and from the propositions of the Bible utilizing deductive reasoning the debate would take a higher tone with the potential of readers being both convinced and convicted of the truth. Without firm foundations and a beginning point then we cannot help but degenerate into opinions; our own.

Apr 1st, 2008
Mario

Uh Greg,

Can you explain in what you mean? Our opinions must be tested by Scripture.We are asserting this very truth; that the Bible alone is the word of God!

“I strive not to improve my opinions but to understand God’s opinions (thoughts).” Would you not say Greg, that as you understand God’s precepts you are striving to improve what you believe and how you think about God? You will develop your opinion about God based on, hopefully, Holy Writ.

“Opinions are the base for wars, convictions are the base for debate,”

Greg, can convictions be the basis of wars and opinions the basis for debate? I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Convictions and opinions can very well be one in the same……

Above all, Scripture alone reveals what Truth is. The “axiom” the bible alone is the word of God,” is what we proclaim here. Have you missed that point?

Apr 1st, 2008
Fusion!

TAND,
To be fair, I would firs ask: do you stay up at night and cry over those who are going/have gone to hell? Now that that is out of the way, most of us here (I know many of them) have stayed up at night thinking through our theology and its implication. Has it left us in some angst? Perhaps. Are there places where we wonder how it works or why it is the way it is? Yeah. But there is one foundation we have that gives us peace: The Lord is in the heavens, he does as he pleases. No matter what our feelings are, when we ask the Lord (much like Abraham did),” Will not the judge of the earth do right?” We can trust that he will, even if for now we look through a glass darkly.

Apr 1st, 2008
Mario

Well said Fusion! I hope all is well with you….Shalom.

Apr 1st, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Greg, hopefully the quote from Calvin was not part of the 20% where he’s wrong, if, that is, Sproul quoted him as part of his [Sproul's] 80% right.

You said, “The one thing missing from the various discussions to date is definition of words.”

Defining terms is essential – I agree.

“Perhaps also the basis of the debate is lacking an axiom which would refer all the parties to a common foundation.”

That would really help. One challenge in accomplishing this is that we get traffic from virtually all strands of life – everyone may not fit that glove. It would help though.

“May I suggest that the Axiom should be: “The Bible alone is the word of God” and its corollary which is “The Bible alone is Truth””

Do you mean Solo Scriptura? If so, I object. The former I can submit to, but the latter is absurd on the basis that it implies there is no truth outside of Scripture. Since you desire to define terms, how about starting with defining “truth?” You asked about truth in another thread here. Were you satisfied with the answers you received?

“…and from the propositions of the Bible utilizing deductive reasoning the debate would take a higher tone with the potential of readers being both convinced and convicted of the truth. Without firm foundations and a beginning point then we cannot help but degenerate into opinions; our own.”

O.K. Sure. Begin by addressing the issues raised above (in this comment), and then state your thesis for debate.

Apr 1st, 2008
Mario Herrera

Kate,

When did we claim to be “cream of the crop?”

And do you claim that these groups are “cream of the crop?”

Why did you even make this comment? Please explain yourself……Tell us what makes someone “cream of the crop” please……

Apr 1st, 2008
Travis

So true fusion, I look at the doctrines I believe and ask questions to myself to make sure they are scriptural. Knowing I see through the glass darkly, I have to do this because I want to know what scripture says, and if i am compeled by scripture to change than I must, but as far as these doctrines go, I can not see scripture teaching differently.

Apr 1st, 2008
Greg

Stephen – thank you for your reply. Simply stated as a definition truth is:
“A proposition that contains no error or possibility of error” – therefore there can be no truth on any subject outside of the Bible; useful facts at times but never truth for all other so called ‘truths’ derive from empirical observation or experience and therefor cannot hold infallibility. Science cannot be truth for this very reason that it is empirical and not revelation. Sola Scriptura in all areas of life for if as Peter says we “Have been given ALL things pertaining t life and Godliness” then that must means all. Foundational to all knowledge is the fear of God which fear cannot be separated from His word. If there is another definition of truth that satisfies the Scriptures then I would gladly entertain it. Outside of God the Son there is no truth on anything at anytime. He made that claim when He said “I am the way, the truth and the Life”. He did not say some truth but the truth.

Apr 1st, 2008
Stephen Macasil

{Stephen – thank you for your reply. Simply stated as a definition truth is: “A proposition that contains no error or possibility of error” – therefore there can be no truth on any subject outside of the Bible; useful facts at times but never truth for all other so called ‘truths’ derive from empirical observation or experience and therefor cannot hold infallibility.}

*Greg, you will have immense problems with that concept of truth. First, since that definition is outside the Bible, it is not truth, merely a useful fact. Second, it limits truth to propositions only. I accept propositional truth, but truth is not ontologically propositional – only. There are more problems, but this will do for now. I submit the following: “Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be.” This (Noah Webster, 1928) definition allows for the correspondence theory of truth, and assumes an objective reference point of what is true and real. It also allows for truth to be historical, present, and future.

{Science cannot be truth for this very reason that it is empirical and not revelation.}

*I agree. I appreciate the “Clarkian Operationalist” view of science. “Operationalism identifies the purpose of science not as description but as manipulation. Laws are not cognitive statements about nature, but are directions for operating in a laboratory. They do not say what nature has done; they say what the scientists should do . . . . With or without a priori concepts, science is not a cognitive enterprise.” (The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, R. H. Nash, Editor, Presbyt. and Reformed Pub. Co., Phil. [1968], pp. 37-43.)

{Sola Scriptura in all areas of life for if as Peter says we “Have been given ALL things pertaining t life and Godliness” then that must means all.}

*Your view, though, is not Sola Scriptura. It is Solo Scriptura. Since I am Reformed, my position of Sola Scriptura is the historic view; that Scripture alone is the final judge in matters of faith and life, and as the Westminster Divines added, “in which sentence we rest!”

{Foundational to all knowledge is the fear of God which fear cannot be separated from His word.}

*Please explain this, particularly how the fear of God and Scripture are joined.

{If there is another definition of truth that satisfies the Scriptures then I would gladly entertain it. Outside of God the Son there is no truth on anything at anytime. He made that claim when He said “I am the way, the truth and the Life”. He did not say some truth but the truth.}

*We’ll come back to this later.

Apr 2nd, 2008
Greg

Stephen – I sure do appreciate your reply, enjoy your comments and admire your thinking processes, which are obviously more honed than mine. I will leave the areas where we agree alone for this missive but inquire in those areas where you bring a correction. In the first instance where you quote Noah Webster and his definition of the word truth it holds the same problem for me in that his definition requires empirical observation, experience and subjective judgment. To me this is problematical and the definition I use (which is not my own but deduced and derived from other writings) still is the only one that meets a Biblical criteria. The limits to propositions only I think is valid and an example would be “The cat is black”; whereas if I said ‘cat’ or ‘black’ they would have no meaning. Biblically we could say ‘Christ Died for our sins according to the scriptures’ but if I said ‘died’ or ‘scriptures’ then neither of these two words would have meaning without a context. It is only propositions that can give a meaning to words and a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. This is partly why I remain on propositions as the only vehicle in which truth can be conveyed. You seem to at least partly agree with me when you refer to the “Clarkian Operationalist” view of science. This view I think is not just restricted to science but I believe Clark used it for all information, knowledge and discovery including but not limited to science.
The definition of truth is not outside the Bible but using the Westminster standards of scripture and all ‘necessary inferences’ or logical deductions we come to understand many things by definition.
Truth to be defined must be absolute and cannot retain even the possibility of error otherwise we could not trust the scriptures or Jesus, the one who wrote them through the apostles and prophets.
I do not believe for a moment that my position is Solo Scriptura (which thought horrifies me) but is Sola Scriptura and in this as with all other correspondence remain open to correction and reproof. I tenuously reject your characterization of the solo until you can evidence me with a more substantive reason that would both convince and convict.
*Please explain this, particularly how the fear of God and Scripture are joined.
In the area of knowledge and the fear of God the Axiom being ‘The bible alone is the word of God’ and in accepting this I reject the oft stated evangelical ‘slogan’; ‘all truth is God’s truth’ and replace it with ‘God’s truth is all truth’ placing the emphasis on the origins of truth rather than the perception of it. The bible says: the fear of the Lord and knowledge are inseparable. Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 9:10, 2 Peter 2:20. How do we know the fear of God? Through the scriptures and the scriptures alone as there can be no other source for it is the Lord whom we are called to fear is the same Lord who wrote the information to be believed. Therefore the Bible alone is truth.
*We’ll come back to this later.
I am looking forward to betting a better definition from you (or anyone else). I remain eager to learn and pray for a continuation in understanding.

Apr 2nd, 2008
Greg

Mario – many thanks for your words and what you have written.
Can you explain in what you mean? Our opinions must be tested by Scripture. We are asserting this very truth; that the Bible alone is the word of God!
*I mean that our opinions leading to convictions of what is truth must not be tested by scripture but originate from scripture itself.
“I strive not to improve my opinions but to understand God’s opinions (thoughts).” Would you not say Greg, that as you understand God’s precepts you are striving to improve what you believe and how you think about God? You will develop your opinion about God based on, hopefully, Holy Writ.
*At all times yes and avoid the constant temptation to bring my own opinions into the learning process.
“Opinions are the base for wars, convictions are the base for debate,”
Greg, can convictions be the basis of wars and opinions the basis for debate? I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Convictions and opinions can very well be one in the same……
* I differentiate here the personal opinions based upon my own word view extant of the scripture as against the true opinions (convictions of the veracity of God’s revelation) – true convictions leads to debate in civility but man’s opinions to which pride is an inescapable component leads to a lack of civility; war sometimes too. Opinions when tested lead to the firm conviction of their truth or otherwise.
Above all, Scripture alone reveals what Truth is. The “axiom” the bible alone is the word of God,” is what we proclaim here. Have you missed that point?
* I do not believe I have missed that point but emphasize it all times and under all circumstances. One of the reasons I entered the debate was in reading the ongoing Chad versus everyone else in that the basis for the discussions did not include explicitly the “Bible alone is the word of God” and thus introduced into the discussions at times were private and personal notions.

Apr 2nd, 2008
Mario

Greg, the reason we exist is to glorify God. Our premise for what we do is that God is sovereign. In order to believe this we bring to the table the fact that the Bible alone is the word of God.

I must be honest with you, you attempt to use high and lofty vocabulary and are very redundant. You have completely lost me. Tell me your background please. Are you Reformed? Eastern Orthodox, Catholic?

Apr 2nd, 2008
Reformed Mama

I agree Mario…it’s a little lofty!

I think this may be the first time we’ve been told to be sure we are talking “God’s word alone”!! lol

Apr 2nd, 2008
Mario

That’s what I’m saying…How does Greg miss this from the writings on biblicalthought? Let’s be straight and to the point!

Apr 2nd, 2008
Mario

Let me try it: The axiom retrogression is profoundly discombobulated. It would seem to me that the opinions of emancipation of the textation, provide for a superkalafradalistic expi alidocious axiom which measures our opinions!

Apr 2nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Greg said: In the first instance where you quote Noah Webster and his definition of the word truth it holds the same problem for me in that his definition requires empirical observation, experience and subjective judgment.

*Remember, it was a counter to your offering of: “A proposition that contains no error or possibility of error.” If Jesus said He was the Truth, was He saying that He was the meaning of a declarative statement? Do you see the tension? When Jesus prayed to the Father saying, sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth,” was He asking God the Father to use propositions alone to do this? If you are known by your fruits, must those fruits be presented via declarative sentences in order for me to truly know them? This can go on and on, I hope you see the point. I think you are confusing the means of truth with truth itself. Truth is conformity to reality. When someone tells you the truth, they’re telling you the way it “really” is. If they tell you the way it isn’t, they’re not telling you the truth. Since God is the sovereign Creator and Sustainer of all things, only He knows how everything “really” is. Thus His word is truth, both incarnate word and written word. That is our objective reference point. I have an apologetics class to get to right now, we’ll pick this up afterwards.

P.S. Empirical observation, experience, reason, etc., are handmaidens to revelation. They are not entirely eliminated from the process, they just aren’t the origin of truth. More later…

Apr 2nd, 2008
Greg

Stephen – thank you for introducing some reasonableness back into the discussion. I do well remember the offer of my definition and the continual search I have for a definition for the word truth. In your reply you offer some interesting possibilities. Before I answer perhaps a little background information may be helpful. I am Anglican in background and upbringing (rather liberal) where the Church of England became liberal in doctrine, conservative regarding function and almost reprobate in behavior. In this dilemma I came to saving belief in the Gospel and suddenly understood the historic 39 articles and the fact that they were substantially derived from the Westminster confession. Whilst I love the articles I believe that Westminster is a far superior document. My personal education and activities (Law, Economics and Music) all leave me without any training or obtained skills in tackling theological matters. Making matters even worse than this sorry litany is that I am British. Forgive me please. So my biblical education is private and enhanced by various means including but not limited to Church and web sites and Blogs.

My offering of the definition of truth as being “A proposition that contains no error or possibility of error” I think stands the test of what Jesus said when he declared “I am the way, the truth and the life”. Jesus said other things that also indicated he was more than he appeared to be when declaring he was the door, the Shepherd, resurrection etc. I take all these to be metaphors and in the case of ‘truth’ he was saying that through him in actions (The cross) and declarations he was truth and He alone is truth. Am I wrong here to call these metaphors? If I am right then the propositions declare truth in absolute terms to us and in terms where contradiction is impossible or if called contradiction becomes blasphemy. If men are sanctified by truth then it can only be in propositions because sanctification comes by the words of Jesus because truth is not an ephemeral state or feeling but is content; words to be believed and words to live by. The law is word and truth is word; both declarative and to be believed when the Holy Spirit causes men to believe. Tell me if I am too far off the mark here?

However I cannot remain here without also believing that language and language skills are highly important because God has communicated in language (which God had before man was created for in Genesis one it talks of God speaking) to us. There for it must be incumbent on all of us to improve language skills; technically and colloquially. Thus definition ranks at the top before I can discuss the matter at hand and this is a simple law of logic; defining terms in the law of non contradiction.

*Truth is conformity to reality.
How can I know this that truth is conformity to reality without defining truth and defining reality? I thoroughly agree that truth is written and incarnate (still is for there is a man on the throne Heb 10:12)

*P.S. Empirical observation, experience, reason, etc., are handmaidens to revelation. They are not entirely eliminated from the process, they just aren’t the origin of truth.

This area is till the great hurdle for me and let me give two examples: all crows are black and all polar bears are white. There are problems with the statement about crows because no one has seen all the crows (IN the DRC Congo there are a breed of crows with a white streak) and the same problem arises with polar bears because no one has seen them all and on other quite insurmountable problem; no one has ever seen a white polar bear. All polar bears thus far discovered are jet black in skin color with white hair that makes them appear a color they are not. These two and numerous other examples destroy empiricism, experience etc but do not destroy your other characteristic of reason. Reason is an attribute of God placed in man as man being made the image of God and man and God can reason together (God invited Isaiah to do just that – chapter 1 v 18) – it still seems to me that empiricism and experience cannot be trusted, ever even though from time to time they grant us useful facts and information.

Read between the lines here for all that I say really has a cry for help.

I look forward to the more later……………

Apr 2nd, 2008
Mario

Greg,

I apologize for the previous comment. Looking back, it is uncalled for. I really did not see where you are coming from. If you are crying for help, I will keep you in prayer and ask that God will answer your cry for help here.

Apr 2nd, 2008
Johnny B

I feel like I’m going to go off path of the discussion, but here goes.

I question Dr Kennedy’s interpretation of those scripture that use “all” it is totally possible that the “decree” went out from Caesar Augustus, had the word all in it and he meant all. That doesn’t mean that all the world responded, Luke is giving us history here, not a doctrine. As far as Colossians goes, the focus is usually of the word “world” not all. This is a proof text for those that believe that, Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD. It is compared the Matthew 24:14, so if the word used for “world” in these two Scriptures is defined as “the know world” then the word “all” would mean all. Yes I fall into that camp as far as the meaning of “world”, but I don’t believe that all of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD. Here’s a question I have, where does the word “all” fall in this text, “but now commands all men everywhere to repent”, because if all means some or the elect, then how does a Just God hold men that don’t repent responsible for not repenting?
Why is “the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them(Romans 2:15)?
Why does the Holy Spirit say “because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”(Romans 1:19-21) about men that are died in their trespasses, how did they know God?
I believe that God is sovereign, that the elect get save because God is calling them, that salvation, repentance, regeneration are all the work of God, that man is responsible for his obedience or disobedience to the Gospel, and that man will be held responsible for transgressing God’s law.

I do understand what the one brother said, as far as people getting scared when they hear “Calvinism or Calvinist” I attended Church’s like that. But the rebel that I am, I have to see if what they are saying is true or not. It is hard for me to fall into one camp or the other, as you can see. I don’t like to call myself an “ist” or that I follow an “ism”, neither one of those men, A or C have the final word on any doctrine. How can they . I guess the one thing that bugs me is when I read someone say, Paul, Augustine, Luther or others before Calvin, were Calvinist, how come, Calvin isn’t a Paulist or a Augustinian?

Apr 3rd, 2008
Stephen Macasil

*Johnny B, I’m not sure what your real point is, but since you have raised a few issues, I’d like to respond.

***I question Dr Kennedy’s interpretation of those scripture that use “all” it is totally possible that the “decree” went out from Caesar Augustus, had the word all in it and he meant all. That doesn’t mean that all the world responded, Luke is giving us history here, not a doctrine.

*Quite a keen observation here! I interpret “all” in this passage as a literal “all.” Although Dr. Kennedy makes some good points illustrating how figurative language is used all the time (no it isn’t), he picked the wrong verse to demonstrate it. The Caesar Augustus tax account (Lk. 2:1) is great for demonstrating that the English word “world” doesn’t always have the same meaning in the Bible. Here, Luke uses the Greek word “oikoumene,” which means the known world; a.k.a. the Roman Empire. The NASB reads “inhabited earth.” As for your theory that the tax “could” have went out to China, India, etc., I think you’ll find it hard-pressed to defend that exegetically.

***As far as Colossians goes, the focus is usually of the word “world” not all. This is a proof text for those that believe that, Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD. It is compared the Matthew 24:14, so if the word used for “world” in these two Scriptures is defined as “the know world” then the word “all” would mean all.

*Excellent point, Johnny! Here, the Greek word for “world” is not oikoumene, rather, “kosmos,” as in John 3:16. The preterists certainly use these verses (Matt, 24:14, Col. 1:6) to “prove” that kosmos can mean “the known world,” by arguing that the gospel was not bearing fruit in “the whole world.” They usually forget to include “auxano,” which is translated “growing (ESV)” or “increasing (NASB).” This is why Paul used kosmos instead of oikoumene. The gospel bears fruit and grows in the whole world just as it bears fruit and grows in the whole person! If Paul’s authorial intent was to geographically limit “the whole world” to only a section of it, then his logical argument would mean that it is growing only in a section of the person who believes. However, that’s not what he says, praise God! Smart preterists know this and instead use verse 4 to make the same argument (no preterist tips here!), which works quite nicely for them.

***Here’s a question I have, where does the word “all” fall in this text, “but now commands all men everywhere to repent”, because if all means some or the elect, then how does a Just God hold men that don’t repent responsible for not repenting?

*All means all, not just the elect, every human everywhere. The end of your question is backwards: “how does a Just God hold men that don’t repent responsible for not repenting?” I’d ask: How could they be responsible if they weren’t commanded? See the difference? The fact that He commands men everywhere to repent of their own sin and idolatry (including you and I), and the fact that we are stone-cold dead in our sin, love our idols, and are incapable of doing so, set the stage for two of the most beautiful words we can know and experience: mercy and grace! Mercy: not getting what we do deserve. Grace: Getting what we do not deserve. O, the riches of Christ!

***Why is “the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them(Romans 2:15)?

*Read it again. It doesn’t say that. You forgot the word “work” which changes everything. The *work* of the law – not the law.

***Why does the Holy Spirit say “because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”(Romans 1:19-21) about men that are died in their trespasses, how did they know God?

*This is referring to general revelation which is going on 24/7/nights/weekends/holidays etc. God made it plain to them that He is. It’s evident from the creation, the world around us. So they have no excuse. The problem for them is that general revelation is insufficient for salvation, and regardless of whether or not they received God’s special revelation, they still rejected god’s revelatory light and worshipped tree stumps and turtles! They’re without excuse! That’s Paul’s point, not that they have a saving knowledge of God.

Apr 3rd, 2008
Stephen Macasil

*Greg, so sorry to hear the news: “Making matters even worse than this sorry litany is that I am British. Forgive me please.” We’ll keep you in prayer…

***I think stands the test of what Jesus said when he declared “I am the way, the truth and the life”.

*Is this not empirical verification? And is not this empirical verification the measure of truth?

***Am I wrong here to call these metaphors? If I am right then the propositions declare truth in absolute terms to us and in terms where contradiction is impossible or if called contradiction becomes blasphemy.

*These are metaphors, but we’re slipping off track. Propositional truth is undeniable. The question for us is whether truth is defined as a proposition. We must be careful how we answer because if we say yes, then all truth must be in propositional form – only.

***If men are sanctified by truth then it can only be in propositions because sanctification comes by the words of Jesus because truth is not an ephemeral state or feeling but is content; words to be believed and words to live by. The law is word and truth is word; both declarative and to be believed when the Holy Spirit causes men to believe. Tell me if I am too far off the mark here?

*Greg, I would agree with your intuition of being off the mark. I would say that based on this statement, you either hold to a very low and distorted view of sanctification, or that biblical sanctification is something that you do not yet quite understand. Not meaning to be harsh, but as the good Brit that you are, you should appreciate the blunt-ness given the seriousness and importance of a right understanding of sanctification.

***However I cannot remain here without also believing that language and language skills are highly important because God has communicated in language (which God had before man was created for in Genesis one it talks of God speaking) to us. There for it must be incumbent on all of us to improve language skills; technically and colloquially. Thus definition ranks at the top before I can discuss the matter at hand and this is a simple law of logic; defining terms in the law of non contradiction.

*Well said, chap! (although “spoke into existence” and “said it was good” may be idiomatic)

***Truth is conformity to reality.
How can I know this that truth is conformity to reality without defining truth and defining reality? I thoroughly agree that truth is written and incarnate (still is for there is a man on the throne Heb 10:12)

*Take for example an earlier proposition you put forth as fact: “In this dilemma I came to saving belief in the Gospel and suddenly understood the historic 39 articles and the fact that they were substantially derived from the Westminster confession.” Now, the Westminster Assembly of Divines was convened on July 1, 1643 in the Chapel of Henry VII. Then on October 2, 1643 (because of cold autumn weather), was transferred to a more comfortable room (the so-called “Jerusalem Chamber”) in the adjoining Deanery. There are 1163 numbered sessions, during which its important labors were transacted (up to February 22, 1649), and the last entry in its Minutes is dated March 25, 1652.

The Church of England drew up the 39 Articles in 1563, a revision of the previous 42 drawn up about a decade earlier. Now, what must be in order for what is to be what it is? In order for your fact to be fact, the year 1563 must be posterior to the year 1643 for the 39 Articles to have been substantially derived from the WCF. Is your proposition true or false, and whichever answer – how do you know?

Another way to answer your question is by determining the logical order of subjects. You asked: “How can I know this that [sic] truth is conformity to reality without defining truth and defining reality?” Your question is affirming the logical order of metaphysics – then – epistemology. Metaphysics has to do with reality – what is real, etc. Epistemology has to do with what can be known, how it can be known, etc. Obviously, you have recognized that it “ain’t” worth the time to discuss what can be known from something you’re not even sure exists! Please excuse the “ain’t,” we Americans…

What is reality? The way things really are.

How are things, really? Created by God for His glory.

How do we know this? He has revealed it in Scripture (propositional).

How do we know that? The Holy Spirit bears witness.

Philosophers will pick this apart and have a field day in destroying this general outline because they hate God and He hates them. The Apostle Paul warned about philosophy (the love of wisdom – philo sophia), calling it empty and deceitful. Paul also warned us to avoid discussions about vain speculations that lead to nothing. He also said to do all things to the glory of God. So, lest we fall into the temptation and snare of the devil, let us recognize our helpless estate and seek Him now.

Father, on the merits of Christ alone we come before your throne. Lord, we’re such stupid sheep, helpless and lost without your word that lights our path. We ask, O God, that you illuminate our minds by the power of the Holy Spirit, and guide us into all truth that we may know you and your will. Father, as we attempt to discuss things we know nothing of apart from your word, we pray that you send the Holy Spirit to enable our minds to receive such understanding. Bless this discussion O God, not only for those participating, but for those silent readers on the sidelines. Touch them now, Lord, we pray. Give life to those who merely seek the intellectual satisfaction and enlightenment of Revealed Religion. Cause for us to be worshippers of you, with fear and trembling, that we may stand in awe before your holiness which is unparalleled. Cause for us to desire to glorify you in our thoughts and lives, that we may not ever seek to give glory to another. O God, Consuming Fire, keep us from apostasy. Left to ourselves, we would apostatize like Israel (Jer. 2). Leave us not, O Holy God! Be glorified in our talks, that those who look in from the world may know that you are a Holy God – and fall on their faces in repentance. Receive them, we pray, and give them faith. Cause for them to embrace the Savior! These things we ask, in Jesus’ name. Amen.

But those philosophers will have an eternity in hell (unless God saves them) to discuss all the nonsense amongst themselves, the demons, Satan, and those literal flames!

Add the last paragraph to the more later…

Apr 3rd, 2008
Greg

Stephen – your time and input is greatly appreciated. I hope the exercise is as profitable for you as it is for me. This will be my last note on this for a while, as I will be traveling for a time starting tomorrow. I have learned and continue to do so.
***I think stands the test of what Jesus said when he declared “I am the way, the truth and the life”.
*Is this not empirical verification? And is not this empirical verification the measure of truth?
##How on earth can this be empirical as it surely falls into the category of revelation. The revelation here being propositional in nature and intent. Implicit within His statement is the He is the only way, the only truth, the only life. It is declarative, eternally unchangeable and represents the very character of God, which character will never be empirical to me but always revelation and can only be believed when God causes me to believe
***Am I wrong here to call these metaphors? If I am right then the propositions declare truth in absolute terms to us and in terms where contradiction is impossible or if called contradiction becomes blasphemy.
*These are metaphors, but we’re slipping off track. Propositional truth is undeniable. The question for us is whether truth is defined as a proposition. We must be careful how we answer because if we say yes, then all truth must be in propositional form – only.
## I still search for truth in other than propositional form and a better definition of truth that comports with the scriptures.
***If men are sanctified by truth then it can only be in propositions because sanctification comes by the words of Jesus because truth is not an ephemeral state or feeling but is content; words to be believed and words to live by. The law is word and truth is word; both declarative and to be believed when the Holy Spirit causes men to believe. Tell me if I am too far off the mark here?
*Greg, I would agree with your intuition of being off the mark. I would say that based on this statement, you either hold to a very low and distorted view of sanctification, or that biblical sanctification is something that you do not yet quite understand. Not meaning to be harsh, but as the good Brit that you are, you should appreciate the blunt-ness given the seriousness and importance of a right understanding of sanctification. The statements in my previous paragraph still I think are right although maybe not complete.

## – I am not sure how you can deduce from here a low view of sanctification, which sanctification I believe is a work of God and not man. My reliance is on the words and word for both salvation and sanctification with sanctification being a consequential work of God to Salvation. If there is another place to know what sanctification is, learn it and grow in it outside the word of God I would love to hear of it immediately. I agree the importance of this aspect of a believer’s life as being intrinsic to life as a believer, fellowship with the Father and fellowship with other Christians.

***Truth is conformity to reality.
How can I know this that truth is conformity to reality without defining truth and defining reality? I thoroughly agree that truth is written and incarnate (still is for there is a man on the throne Heb 10:12)
*Take for example an earlier proposition you put forth as fact: “In this dilemma I came to saving belief in the Gospel and suddenly understood the historic 39 articles and the fact that they were substantially derived from the Westminster confession.” Now, the Westminster Assembly of Divines was convened on July 1, 1643 in the Chapel of Henry VII. Then on October 2, 1643 (because of cold autumn weather), was transferred to a more comfortable room (the so-called “Jerusalem Chamber”) in the adjoining Deanery. There are 1163 numbered sessions, during which its important labors were transacted (up to February 22, 1649), and the last entry in its Minutes is dated March 25, 1652.
The Church of England drew up the 39 Articles in 1563, a revision of the previous 42 drawn up about a decade earlier. Now, what must be in order for what is to be what it is? In order for your fact to be fact, the year 1563 must be posterior to the year 1643 for the 39 Articles to have been substantially derived from the WCF. Is your proposition true or false, and whichever answer – how do you know?
Another way to answer your question is by determining the logical order of subjects. You asked: “How can I know this that [sic] truth is conformity to reality without defining truth and defining reality?” Your question is affirming the logical order of metaphysics – then – epistemology. Metaphysics has to do with reality – what is real, etc. Epistemology has to do with what can be known, how it can be known, etc. Obviously, you have recognized that it “ain’t” worth the time to discuss what can be known from something you’re not even sure exists! Please excuse the “ain’t,” we Americans…

## I stand corrected having quoted here from hearsay never having studied or looked at the history of the Articles or Westminster but only at the documents themselves. I had remembered someone once stating that one or the other formed one of the basis for consideration when preparing the other – I thought I heard a sequence that is now obviously incorrect. However one good thing is that you have piqued my interest in studying a little of the history pertaining to this matter. Thank you for your correction.

What is reality? The way things really are.
## How do I know the way things really are; I go back to polar bears with almost all believing polar bears are white when in fact they are all jet black with the hair covering their black skin giving them the appearance of what they are not.

How are things, really? Created by God for His glory.
## I cannot know this except by revelation; propositional revelation to be believed. Therefore the scripture must precede my declaration rather than being used to prove or demonstrate my declaration.
How do we know this? He has revealed it in Scripture (propositional).
How do we know that? The Holy Spirit bears witness.
## Yes this I s partly true but I also believe it because it is written which is testified to several times by John; “These things are written that you may know……….” The mind of God and the mind of man coincide here with the Holy Spirit enabling me to believe what God has stated.
Philosophers will pick this apart and have a field day in destroying this general outline because they hate God and He hates them. The Apostle Paul warned about philosophy (the love of wisdom – philo sophia), calling it empty and deceitful.

## I disagree here for I do not see that Paul warns us about Philosophy but about “philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” – I think Paul here is extolling the virtue of loving and seeking truth condemning those that seek after it in the world and implicitly praising those who seek after it in Christ. I have no philosophical leanings but believe Philosophy is a wonderful pursuit for the believer who has as his philosophical axiom “The Bible alone is the word of God and the Bible alone is truth”. Philosophy for too long has been occupied by Pagans and this discipline needs to be invaded by the theologians with skills in thinking.

Paul also warned us to avoid discussions about vain speculations that lead to nothing. He also said to do all things to the glory of God. So, lest we fall into the temptation and snare of the devil, let us recognize our helpless estate and seek Him now.

##You added a wonderful payer here, which needs to be memorized and used by many.

Add the last paragraph to the more later…

##I look forward to it when I finish my travels

Apr 4th, 2008
Johnny B

Stephen, I’m sorry, I didn’t clarify the question, about, a “Just God”. I was asking with the Calvinist view of election behind it. If all men can not repent, because, all men are not elect, but He commands them to do so. Now does a Just God, hold them responsible, for not repenting, if He didn’t elect them to repent or give them the ability to do so.

I see God’s election and human responsibility, in salvation, it’s a great paradox. It’s all God’s work, and we are to respond. Ephesians 1:3-11 all God 1:12-14, our side “trusted” having “heard” we “believed”. I can’t rationalize this in my mind, if it’s all God, why do I have to trust, hear, believe, hope, obey the Gospel, etc, if it has nothing to do with me, because it’s all God. I can’t fully understand this, but this is what Scripture reveals, so I submit to it. I don’t hard line on either side. Because that would take away from what salvation is, and it could cause me to pervert God’s nature, by making absolute statements, that I don’t fully understand. It’s my idolatrous nature, that want to make absolute statement about God and His ways, that I absolutely don’t understand fully. I can’t focus on one and not the other. I focus one over the other and I could pervert the other and vise-a-versa.

I wish that the “isms” and the “ists” would be dropped and that we’d work together to come to the best understanding. I can read one side and agree with some and disagree with the rest, as well as I can do the same with the other side. I agree with both sides, and disagree with both sides.

I guess I’m a lost soul

Thanks for pointing out the word “work” in Romans 2:15, which opens another can of worms for me. I don’t want to take up this discussion, trying to figure it out or getting help figuring it out

Apr 4th, 2008
Johnny B

Did I say some thing wrong? I’d like some help with the Just God question.

Apr 7th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

JohnnyB, these aren’t by any means the fullest answers.

“If all men can not repent, because, all men are not elect, but He commands them to do so. Now does a Just God, hold them responsible, for not repenting, if He didn’t elect them to repent or give them the ability to do so.”

*The inability of man does not negate his accountability to a God that demands perfection. He has established His Law as the perfect standard by which He judges and no man stands approved according to the Law other than His Son Jesus the Christ whom He sent as a Savior to His elect. Besides, God’s command for all men to repent does not leave man without excuse, His general revelation does. It is also necessary to remember that God isn’t held to a higher standard than Himself such as “justice.” Therefore, He doesn’t do what He does because it is just, what He does is just because He is God. That’ll put a knot in most brains, but that’s what has been revealed about Him in His Word.

I can’t rationalize this in my mind…”

*Do not base what is true on “Reason.” This does not mean that biblical truth isn’t rational, it means that man’s fallen and corrupt “Reason” isn’t the determiner of truth.

“…if it’s all God, why do I have to trust, hear, believe, hope, obey the Gospel, etc, if it has nothing to do with me, because it’s all God.”

*Simply, because that is what God has commanded. Furthermore, He has ordained the means of “conversion” as the preaching and believing of the gospel. Conversion happens on the conscious level of man and is not all of God, rather, God and man. What you are referring to is “regeneration” which is all of God on the subconscious level of man. Man is not aware of, nor does he initiate, his regeneration, which is miraculously performed by the Holy Spirit. Misunderstanding this has led to much of the Calvinist/Arminian disagreements in the past as well as today – and if it’s not understood, it is certain to continue in the future!

“It’s my idolatrous nature, that want to make absolute statement about God and His ways, that I absolutely don’t understand fully.”

*Remember, Scripture makes absolute statements about God. Therefore it is your obligation to believe the true statements about God that are revealed in Scripture. It would be idolatrous to believe otherwise.

Apr 7th, 2008
Johnny B

My idolatrous nature wants to make absolute statements about God that I don’t fully understand, is more like what I meant. My biggest confusion is, there all Scripture on both sides. John 3:16, I’ve read how some believe that the “all” is not all, but the elect. If that is true, then why did Jesus add “whosoever” if it’s only for the elect?

Thanks Bro, I’ve read a few books on five point Calvinism and some of the arguments or definitions are far reaching on certain words. I see their point, but then I read Scripture, that show mans responsibility and I can’t ignore them, like I can’t ignore the Scripture that show it’s all God.

I know that God is Just, but does He have a standard for us, that’s not like Him? For instance, if I made a man unable to swim, by removing his limbs. Then drop in the ocean and demanded that he swim to shore or I’d punish him. By God’s standard, wouldn’t I be evil? I’m not judging God, I’m trying to know Him better. Looking through the Scriptures I don’t see that in His nature, if you can show me some Scripture that would show something like that, I would appreciate that.

Apr 7th, 2008
agogley

“I know that God is Just, but does He have a standard for us, that’s not like Him? For instance, if I made a man unable to swim, by removing his limbs. Then drop in the ocean and demanded that he swim to shore or I’d punish him. By God’s standard, wouldn’t I be evil?”

This is one of the questions (or variation thereof) that I struggled with early in my sanctification. But Paul dealt with this in Romans. And his words strike to the heart of the question: “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?”

Read on:

(Rom 9:1-33)

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.” And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. As He says also in Hosea, “I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, ‘MY PEOPLE,’ AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, ‘BELOVED.’” “AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, ‘YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,’ THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD.” Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED; FOR THE LORD WILL EXECUTE HIS WORD ON THE EARTH, THOROUGHLY AND QUICKLY.” And just as Isaiah foretold, “UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT TO US A POSTERITY, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WOULD HAVE RESEMBLED GOMORRAH.” What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

Apr 8th, 2008
Johnny B

Agogley, thanks, I’ve went back to these scriptures in the Old Testament and seen the context that they are in. I understand that God calls, choices and elects. My confusion is, in Calvinism, it leaves no room for our responsibility or it doesn’t deal with it. mind you I haven’t read every book on Calvinism, so if I wrong, help me out. Even this chapter ends with “HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED”

If you look at the video in the subject “Alter call” http://biblicalthought.com/blog/what-about-the-altar-call/
the one Bro, talks about “resisting grace”. My guess is he’s a Calvinist, but I’m not sure. My guess is if you asked him, if grace was/is irresistible, he’d probably say no, because of the I in TULIP.

Believe me I have lots of question, that seem to be taboos for people that believe in the five points of Calvinism. It’s like those Scripture on human responsibility can not be responded to or you’ll be braking away from TULIP as if it is the final authority, this is just what it seems like to me, I’m not saying that this is what is happening.

One question, you’re not saying that understanding this is part of the sanctification process, are you or that it had something to do with yours?
I’ve always been one of those people that has to investigate Biblical Doctrine, I can’t believe something because the preacher said so. Believe me it’s caused some problems for me in Churches I’ve been a part of. Start talking about election and you’d think I was blaspheming God.
I appreciate the help, believe me it’s been a long road. As I get some answers, it seems like new one will come up. The Reformers have helped tremendously, with my understand of sin, grace, the nature of God, the work of Christ, and other doctrines of the bible.

Thanks again, please keep the input coming, if this isn’t the place, maybe some personal correspondence, with more then one person, would be great.

Apr 8th, 2008
agogley

Johnny:

Election is a difficult doctrine. It does seem paradoxical in that election and human responsibility seem contradictory. But because God has elected some does not preclude anybody from being responsible for their own actions. The Bible is clear that God elects some by his own will and yet we are also responsible for our own actions.

I’d also add that many doctrines seem paradoxical.

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
(Rom 6:1-2)

Here is one of Spurgeon’s sermons on the issue which may be helpful (I am not going to reinvent the whee when another’s will suffice).

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0041.htm

Also John MacArthur Voice clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHilc3rTC2U

Apr 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

JohnnyB,

Obviously, grace is resistible, the Bible makes that clear. Each one of us has/is resisted/resisting. The miracle is when we stop resisting. Irresistible Grace is not a term that Calvinists came up with themselves. It was given as a point-of-contention by the Remonstrants (followers of Arminius). The problem is that most Calvinists blindly accept this term and defend it, while all along never realizing that it was given by the Arminians! We must not let our opponents define terms for us – we must define them ourselves. This is from the “Five Articles of the Remonstrants” of 1610:

“That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to the extent that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, since it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places).”

[See Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 3, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1996, pp 545ff.]

“John 3:16, I’ve read how some believe that the “all” is not all, but the elect. If that is true, then why did Jesus add “whosoever” if it’s only for the elect?”

Please explain more about this.

“I know that God is Just, but does He have a standard for us, that’s not like Him? For instance, if I made a man unable to swim, by removing his limbs. Then drop in the ocean and demanded that he swim to shore or I’d punish him. By God’s standard, wouldn’t I be evil?”

1. When you say “made a man” are you referring to you as a Creator? Because if you did make a man, that would make you a Potter, and Scripture says that the potter has right to make out of his clay whatever He wills – even man unto destruction with the intention of being a vessel of wrath as his destiny and purpose. If you mean “made a man unable to swim” by removing his limbs against his will or for no medical-related purpose, then yes, you would be wrong in harming him, one who was made in God’s image. If you made him unable to swim by removing his limbs due to medical reasons, and if you were authorized to do so (him a diabetic with gangrene and you an M.D. or something), then dropping him in the ocean would certainly be a violation of not only God’s law, but civil law as well. In that case, demanding him to swim would simply make you tyrannical, psychotic, and harmful to society.

2. Let’s look at it like this: If the man removed his own limbs, jumped into the ocean and died while attempting to fulfill his own deranged expectation of swimming to shore, and you found his lifeless body a week later and miraculously breathed life back into him and promised that his limbs would be restored to full health one day, would the rescued man that you “made alive” be able to take any credit or claim that he received what was due him? Would you not be the rightful recipient of his praise?

3. Let’s say that example #2 (above) was true about all of mankind, and you rescued some, not all. Would those that were saved have the right to demand of you the same that they received? If you were the only being in existence that could do such a miracle, and if you alone possessed infinite wisdom, and if every decision you made was perfect, and if your decision was to rescue some and not all according to a plan that you had in your infinite and unquestionable wisdom, would you not be just in doing whatever you wanted to do, even if those saved cannot do whatever they want to do?

P.S. This forum is fine to ask questions. Hang around, your submission to Scripture will attract many godly men and women here that will share with you – in love – how God’s grace has TRANSFORMED them. We’re the only ministry that has a “Reformed Mama,” that is evidence enough that we care

Apr 8th, 2008
agogley

Dr. Morey has a CD on Tulip that outlines what Stephen says about TULIP being the creation of Arminians. Dr. Morey used some other terms to replace TULIP, I just can’t remember what they are. I’ll have to review the CD again.

Apr 8th, 2008
Travis

Gods knowladge, here is something i am wrestling with and will probubly continue to wrestle with, if were are honest with our thinking and we sayGod foreknows all things, How can sin be created without God designing sin into the plan.

why do we continue to sin, what is “sin in me”

And

When we sin as believers, which is still always, I know God sees us through Christ but why repent then, if we are cleared and God is no longer angry?

These are just question Im hashing out in scripture, just wanted to share them with you guys and look for your insight, I bilieve what scripture says there are just somethings I just dont fully have a grasp on.

Apr 8th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Travis, you asked:

“When we sin as believers, which is still always, I know God sees us through Christ but why repent then, if we are cleared and God is no longer angry?”

That’s a great question. It shows that you’re really working through these things – evidence of the Holy spirit guiding you into all truth!

I was at a DelTaco with Dr. Morey, and he mentioned how Christians need to understand the distinction between forensic forgiveness and Fatherly forgiveness (I think that was the term he used – I was tackling a Bacon Double Del!). He was explaining how the mature and healthy saints understand that when they are justified solely by faith, that their sins have been forgiven by the substitutionary death of Christ, and that they’ll sin and sin, disrupting communion with God. When they ask for forgiveness, it is to their Father in heaven for their sin as a stupid sin-hating, yet sin-committing sheep, so that fellowship and communion with Him may be restored. The immature Christians continually re-approach the throne of God for forensic forgiveness every time they sin (over and over again). That is psychologically damaging to a person. On the one hand he/she believes they’re forgiven, but when the besetting sins get the best of them, they cry to God for forensic forgiveness again – questioning their salvation along the way.

Fatherly forgiveness (still not sure if this is the term he used) is like seeking reconciliation with your Dad, or your Abba! While Justification is forensic and legal (a one-time declaration at conversion), Sanctification is ongoing, progressive, and relational.

But before that, you asked: “here is something i am wrestling with and will probubly continue to wrestle with, if were are honest with our thinking and we sayGod foreknows all things, How can sin be created without God designing sin into the plan.”

It was designed into the plan, according to Scripture. The Bible tells us that the “Book of Life of the Lamb Who Was Slain” was written before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8, 17:8). The Book’s name indicates that the crucified Messiah of Israel was determined before the world was. That means that sin had to happen in order to bring about death and suffering so that there would be a world with death and suffering for the Messiah to come into and suffer and die. It’s all according to plan. This, and many other arguments straight from the text, prove this doctrine which is commonly known and hated as “predestination!”

Apr 8th, 2008
Reformed Mama

JohnnyB~

May you visit us often and find much comfort here…

Coming to Reformed faith has set my family free…we realize we are SO not in charge…of anything! It is a very humble and blessed place to be…knowing that nothing comes our way but that it has first passed through the Sovereign God.

All of us here could offer many resources such as Monergism.com for atricles/teaching, any CDs or books by Dr. Bob or meditating on Spurgeon’s sermons…to enrich your learning. But…in the end…these are only men. Scripture must be your final authority in all matters of life.

Beware of those who are not balanced Biblically…such as hyper-Calvinists. They are in disobedience.

God’s grace…

Apr 9th, 2008
Johnny B

Thanks guys, I was beginning to think that maybe my questions were being ignored or that I wasn’t presenting them right.

Stephen, I’m sorry, it wasn’t “all” it was “world’ I’ve read books by 5 point Calvinist, that said, the word would in John 3:16, meant the elect, not the whole world. If it’s not the whole world, then how does “whosoever” fit in?

Here’s what I see in Romans 9, verses 1-5 set the stage, God choice Israel to bring forth the Christ.
Verses 6-9 God made a promise to Abraham, but just because you’re of Abraham according to the flesh, doesn’t mean you’re part of the promise. Only those that believed like Abraham in Genesis 15:6, verse 9, his faith is explained in Romans 4:17-21, with verse 21 being what his faith was/is. 10-11, the election is according to the promise, the Christ. verse 12 is a reference to genesis 25:23 “And the Lord said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.” Jacob was chosen as the nation of the promise. Esau would serve Jacob, I believe having to do with the birth right. Verse 13 referring to Malachi 1:1-3, the Lord loves Israel, because of the promise, Jacob being in that promise. We see that in God’s anger or hatred for Esau, there was judgment on Esau’s decedents.
Verses 14-18 the Exodus, part of the promise, verse 15, is from Exodus 33:19 “Then He said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” The verses before this Moses is reasoning with God, asking Him go with His people and Moses. “Then will it be known that Your people and I have found grace in Your sight” I see Exodus 33:19 as God’s answer to verse 18, letting Moses know that He can show His
Goodness or proclaim His Name to who ever He wants. In His grace, compassion or mercy. Back to verse 18 in the text, just like God chose Israel to fulfill the promise, he chose Pharaoh, to be in the story of the promise, to show His power. The Lord showed Himself to Pharaoh, not in the same way that He did to Moses, but the Pharaoh knew the reality of the Lord. Yet his heart hardened, while God gave him opportunity to repent. Interesting part of the story, Pharaoh hardened his Heart and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Then the people of Israel saw Him work wonders in the wilderness and they hardened their hearts as well, Psalms 95:8-10.
Verses 19-21, I have to admit that these verses are hard to interpret, with the forgone conclusion to them. I’ll try by sticking to the context. Verse 19-21 Because He’s Holy. No one can stop His purpose. You can’t contradict God’s plan or promise, because He is faithful. No. Yes.
Verse 22-24 He has done that.
Verse 25, God is doing what He said He would do in vs. 15
Verse 26, The inclusion of the Gentile, in God plan of redemption or promise.
Verses 27-28, are a combination of Scripture, so I can’t go back and get the meaning in it context. So I believe it’s talking about Gentiles, being able to partake in the promise.
Verse 29, I believe it’s talking about the “seed” of the women, Christ. If Christ had not come, we would all be left without hope.
30-32, righteousness is by faith, not works of the law.
33, is a combination of Isaiah 28:16, the “stumbling stone and rock of offense” is Christ, 1 Peter 2:4-8. Whoever believes on Christ will not be put to shame or as John 3:15 says “should not perish but have eternal life.”

I know this is long, but I figures this would, let everyone know where I’m coming from, as far ar hermeneutics go. That way, I can get help where I need understanding or maybe this might help someone. I understand a little more about Calvin’s hermeneutics, like anything, when coming out of something, we still carry some of it with us. From what I read the reformation, was a period, coming out of the allegorical interpretation period. If I remember right it was around the same time as the Renaissance. I do like to read.

Apr 9th, 2008
Johnny B

After thinking about this more, I’m going to say that the context. Leads me to believe that the vassals of honor, are the Jews. vassals of dishonor, are the Gentiles. Because the following verses, start including the Gentiles.
I’m not seeing these verses as talking about the Church, or an outline of election unto salvation, but the history of the promise.

Apr 11th, 2008
Glenn Hendrickson

Hi, It’s me again. I was just checking in to see if Mario (or anyone else) could kindly provide me with a source for the claim that “The average pastor states that they teach the word of God at a 5th grade level so “everyone can understand.””

If I missed it in the many comments that have been posted since I first asked please forgive me. Thanks!

Apr 16th, 2008
Jean Cauvin

Regarding a saying via Dr. Morey,

Dr. Morey once responded to a question at a apologetics classs one night on Tulip. The question was on a tape and then turned into a series.

In the Q&A single tape though, he said that the concept of TULIP was actually a small “footnote” in a large two volume set (the 2 volume set title is not named).

What on earth is the name of this two volume set (just a name). He probably doesn’t remember the page number, but to claim this one should at least know the name of the book.

Tulip was a counter-attack against the remonstrance of 1610 at the Synod of Dort in 1618. The 5 points of Armininianism were antithetical to the 5 points of Calvinism (though not in order of each other or in correspondant order).

So again, via Dr. Morey’s tape

1) What is the name of this 2 volume set where Tulip is first used?
2) If it’s know what is the page #? (at least the book name please)

I have asked other professors this question and nobody knows what I’m talking about.

I truly hope that the name of the book set is at least known. To claim fatigue or memory loss at this point is down right frustrating.

Jean Cauvin

Apr 18th, 2008
Stephen Macasil

Jean, he was saying that TULIP is not all there is to Calvinism. He used the footnote analogy (TULIP is only a footnote on a page in a volume that is part of a set) to make the point that Calvinism is a world and life view, IOW, much more than TULIP.

Apr 18th, 2008
Jean Cauvin

I once personally asked him the name of the two volume set and he could not recall it.

That doesn’t make sense to use a metaphore in reference to a two volume set.

Perhaps if he finds time and reads this he can clarify it for the both of us. Was this a metaphore or is there an actual two volume set of books out there with an actual footnote that first uses the tern TULIP.

Maybe you’re right.

Jean Cauvin.

Apr 19th, 2008
Dr. Morey

Jean Cauvin
I was using an illustration that the Refromed Faith has so much more to offer as a worldview that T.U.L.I.P. is like a footnote in a set of books. Some people understand the five points but not the worldview. I have spent almost 40 years applying the worldview to all of life.

Apr 20th, 2008
MCUMC

I would go one step further and say that the Reformed Fatih is but a footnote to the Bible. The BIBLE, not Reformed Faith, has a worldview that is worthy of applying one’s life to, and all of it.

There is a tendency among the Reformed, I find, to place upon the Bible their “system” and interpret the Bible through it, rather than allow the Bible to interpret their “system.”

Apr 20th, 2008
Jean Cauvin

Stephen you were right. Thank you for the clarification Dr. Morey. It sounded literal when I first heard it.

This has been a head scratch for many years. The scratching has now discontinued.

Jean Cauvin

Apr 20th, 2008
pastorbruce

What of the “non-elect” that understand and promote the “T.U.L.I.P” accurately but hold that they are those who are destined to be “endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” to God’s glory.”

Apr 21st, 2008
OverCommiTAD2theWord

Pastor B,
I could be wrong, but “what, if” senarios are not profitable.

Apr 21st, 2008
Mario

PastorBruce,

Why even get into this Pastor B? Are you seeking a biblical answer? God’s divine plan is being carried out in the world today, specifically in the church at large. There will be those who think they are saved, but in the end hear those terrible words, “depart from me, I never knew you.”

It is more important that we examine ourselves as individuals. Are we, as a result of studying the Scriptures, motivated to holiness? So often we ask these “what if” types of questions, but to what end? In our own minds we may already be convinced. In the end, the Lord Almighty will do as He so desires. The fact that He is sovereign magnifies our responsibilities! Not to quarrel about “what ifs,” but to propel the work of God into the church and the world, that the Lord may give His people a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the in the knowledge of Him. That the eyes of the people’s hearts may be enlightened, so that they would know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward His people who believe.

Pastor Bruce….My conviction is that this is more important than the question you pose…….

Apr 21st, 2008
Jean Cauvin

We must remember, that the stupid questions are also predestined.

Jean Cauvin

Apr 21st, 2008

Reply to “T.U.L.I.P”

Stay updated on Biblical Thought.

Content RSS - Straight to your reader
Comments RSS - Add to the discussion

eNewsletter

FORUM RULES

This is an interactive forum with rules that will be enforced by BT Moderators at their sole discretion. It is understood and accepted that some theological discussions can be emotionally driven, and at times get heated. BT Moderators will attempt to regulate any behavior that is deemed destructive to the pursuit of biblical truth, or any behavior that violates the commands, precepts, and examples revealed in Scripture.

Participation in the BT Forum is a privilege and not a right. Therefore, go out of your way if necessary to show yourself blessed, and conduct yourself according to the following:

1. Try to stay on topic. Use the contact form for private or off topic comments/questions.

2. Do not post outside links unless they are directly related to the topic of the OP.

3. Posting using your real name is preferred (unless we know you), but not mandatory. When choosing a nick-name, you may not use the word “Reformed.” There are two exemptions: Reformed Mama and Reformed Rich. These saints were granted free BT exemption passes at the BT headquarters: the Oasis.

4. No drive-by posting. No posting in book form; keep it a reasonable length that will encourage others to post and promote further biblical discussion. (HT: Steve Camp)

5. Immediately adhere to Moderator warnings.

6. No stalking. No demands. No Presbyterians (j/k)!

7. if you have anything to say other than what is immediately related to the OP, use the contact form.

8. Failure to comply with Moderators will result in your indefinite banishment, including the blocking of your IP. EXEMPTIONS: Testimonies, praise reports, prayer requests, doxologies, exhortations, encouragements, clean humor, and things like these are permitted irrespective of the thread or OP.

biblicalthought.com

T.U.L.I.P

58 Comments, Comment or Ping

Reply to “T.U.L.I.P”

Subscribe

Categories

Recent Comments

eNewsletter

FORUM RULES