While Stephen was cozy in his home during Christmas, with his wife, daughters and the Word of God and while Sir Aaron was being prompted by the Holy Spirit to exercise Christmas joy my family was being given great grace…grace we certainly didn’t earn and didn’t deserve…but desperately needed.
After Christmas Eve ham and a pleasant gift exchange with my husband’s side of the family, the subject of a neighbor we have all been praying for came up. My mother-in-law exhorted us to keep praying! She wanted “breakthrough”! I opened my mouth just in time for my Calvinism to spill out…”Yes, we continue our prayers that if she is one of God’s elect He will call her home to saving faith”…something along those lines. Without warning my MIL’s (mother-in-law) face became contorted and she began to literally spit as if she had tasted something repulsive! Indeed she had. I asked her why she was doing that! She raised her voice and proclaimed that there is no such thing as election! The whole atmosphere changed as OvercommiTad and I calmly related some of the Scriptures (John 17, Romans 9,10,11 etc.) that proclaim this amazing doctrine. As we turned to passage after passage in the Word she informed us that it didn’t matter what we showed her, her mind was made up. Jesus wants everyone to be saved period.
Merry Christmas to us…truly Merry Christmas to us. Our Heavenly Father counted us worthy to defend the Faith and the Scriptures given by Him and His only Son…the One we had come together to celebrate that night.
The above conversation went on for some time and if Stephen finds it edifying, in the future I would like to bring to you the specific objections my in-laws have. These are people who have followed the Lord for 50 plus years…not newbies! Yet, they reject huge and precious portions of Scripture. But why? As we drove home from worship practice 2 days later it occurred to me that perhaps they simply are not ready…even after 50 some years…to bow the knee to Scripture and come home to Reformed faith.
Where is this grace I mentioned in the title? It is woven throughout the piece…for it’s all of grace! But, specifically I experienced God’s grace in those moments where my heart pounded, my face became hot and in my flesh I wanted to let my anger loose on my tiny MIL for not believing. But, No! The Holy Spirit came upon me and I gently exhorted her that these Scripturally based doctrines should not make her mad but are put there for her comfort and should bring her great joy in that THE SOVEREIGN GOD IS IN CONTROL and we are so not!! She had no comment.
Last night I came upon this passage from some writings by Robert L. Dabney. I found it to match what the Lord had already shown me about my in-laws’ state of readiness. As has been stated here on BT, Reformed faith is not for the faint of heart! The following passage explains why:
“”The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care.” In preaching it, that proportion should be observed, which obtains in the Bible; and no polemical zeal against the impugners of the doctrine ought to tempt the minister to obtrude it more often. To press it prominently on anxious inquirers, or on those already confused by cavils of heretics or Satanic suggestions, or to urge it upon one inclined to skepticism, or one devoid of sufficient Christian knowledge, experience and humility, is unsuitable and imprudent. And when taught, it should be in the mode which usually prevails in Scripture, viz: a posteriori , as inferred from its result, effectual calling.
But when thus taught, the doctrine of predestination is full of edification. It gives ground for humility, because it leaves man no ground for claiming any of the credit of either originating or carrying on his salvation. It lays a foundation for confident hope; because it shows that “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” It should open the fountains of love and gratitude, because it shows the undeserved and eternal love of God for the undeserving. See here an eloquent passage in Witsius, b. 3, chap. 4, 30. We should learn to teach and to view the doctrine, not from an exclusive, but from an inclusive point of view. It is sin which shuts out from the favor of God, and which ruins. It is God’s decree which calls back, and repairs and saves all who are saved. Whatever of sin, of guilt, of misery, of despair the universe exhibits, arises wholly out of man’s and Satan’s transgression. Whatever of redemption, of hope, of comfort, of holiness and of bliss alleviates this sad panorama, all this proceeds from the decree of God. The decree is the fountain of universal benevolence; voluntary sin is the fountain of woe. Shall the fountain of mercy be maligned because, although it emits all the happiness in the universe, it has a limit to its streams?”
For more by Dabney go here
In closing, let us rejoice Christian, for we serve an awesome, gracious God:
“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable His judgments, and His paths beyond tracing out!
Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been His counselor?
Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?
For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.
To Him be the glory forever! Amen.
Romans 11:33-36
God’s grace…
{ 98 comments… read them below or add one }
It is God’s grace indeed! Thanks RM for the reminder of how blessed we are. My wife and I are having the same conversation with my parents. My dad believes that God is sovereign, yet we have a choice to accept or reject, he just can’t explain how both are accurate. Keep praying for us and we’ll keep praying for you.
Also, please pray for grace and wisdom as I preach this morning (Isa 53).
God’s grace is truly amazing. Wow, I can just imagine the situation with
the “MIL”, oh boy!! It does amaze me though, how we as humans,with the
greatest of ease, can defend “Free Will.” It (free will) seems to be an Idol
in some sense.
I was there once.
God Bless you and your family.
So Glen, If you don’t believe what your father believes then what exactly do you believe as far as free will, god’s sovereignty, and being one of god’s elect?
LOL,
I believe in what is traditionally called 5 point Calvinism. If you would like I can go deeper, but this is a pretty heavy doctrine, especially for someone who does not believe in the Bible to begin with.
Your entire belief system is based off of “predestination”. Meaning no matter what your name is already either in the book of life or out. This book cannot be changed. So let me ask you this. How do you know for certain that your name is in that book? And what happens if a person lives the life of god and wins souls and spreads the bible’s teachings yet his name isn’t in that book? I guess I am saying I would like you to go deeper. If it is too much for me then it is too much for me. But at least allow me the opportunity to learn from you. Who knows maybe my name is in that book. I just haven’t been shown the way yet.
Is this what most everyone believes on this forum?
LOL,
Yes, that is what most of the people here believe. I’m spending some time with my family right now so I’ll have to get back to you in the next few days. Stay tuned.
Steven, would you like me to send this to you as a new thread?
Quite understandable. I look forward to this discussion. Being a former baptist/ penticostal this should be a real eye opener.
Staying tuned.
Hi LOL1ALLOFYOU,
Before discussing Calvinism we must first discuss:
1) Original Sin?
Was Adam Sick?
2) The Effects of that Sin (Noetic effects of sin) if any?
3) Sin in relation to Reason?
4) Definition of Reason?
5) Is the death of sin an in toto consequence or partial consequence?
6) Is a Partial Consequence, then what parts were affected?
7) Did Adam die upon his sin?
9) Did Adam NOT die, rather we are sinners because we sin, NOT because we are sinners?
This doctrine starts in Genesis and ends in Revelation via Christ’s victory over death.
From a historical point of view, the 5 points of Calvinism was written via DEFENSE against the 5 points of Arminianism. These were drafted the year after Jacobus Arminius’ death known as the Remonstrance. Those can be seen here:
http://www.theopedia.com/Five_Articles_of_Remonstrance
The 5 points of Calvinism were thus use as a counter-measure of DEMONSTRATION against the 5 points of Arminianism (the Remonstrance).
Though these 5 points are ambiguous unless understood at a counter-measure against the Remonstrance.
Calvin got the credit and became synonymous with the term Christianity within Protestant Christian circles.
This is because Calvin was a Scholar of systematization. Luther in fact spoke on this subject much more (e.g. Bondage of the Will). Though some have argued it was Calvin who systematized it during the Reformation.
Though I would argue that Augustine was good at systematization as well. Though it should be noted that Augustine was NOT a scholar, but rather a “thinker,” Calvin was a both.
So the question remains, did Adam really die when he bit that fruit? And how did this effect his capacity of knowledge and reason (if it did at all)?
If these questions can’t be answered in your mind, or if this is above your head, then you are too emotional to grasp anything in relation to the spiritual (II Corinthians 2:14).
“good luck!”
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Hello,
It should be noted that in Morey’s tape series on “Tulip” which was posed via a question from an audience member, he makes a mistake.
In saying that Tulip was a footnote in a two volume book. I have not found this book and this seems to be a slip up.
He himself has no idea what he was talking about and cannot substantiate this “footnote.”
If somebody can prove me wrong, please do so. Simply provide that 2 volume book footnote around the time of the Council of Dort so that we will not have to throw his tape away.
If this cannot be done, somebody needs to edit that sloppy statement out.
In the future, I would encourage Morey (out of love I say this) to be more careful when speaking of things of an academic nature.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
(Just Say No To “Yes-Men”)
Of course, this footnote speaks of it’s origin.
Well before I answer your 9 questions, we must first discuss the belief of Predestination. If you believe in predestination and don’t believe in free will then why does any of this matter? Why does anything we do matter? If you believe that This list of names was created before creation, which is contradictory in itself, and there is no changing this list, then why would it matter what you believe if you have zero control over it? Basically, If an athiest/agnostic has his name on that list he still gets to go to heaven according to Calvinism. At least that is what I have gotten from it. I know it says that if thier name is on the list they will heed god’s word and have true understanding of the scriptures. But by stating that alone gives no vailidity to a just god. If a god is all powerful and all knowing then why would he have a good vs. the bad? Why would he make an imperfect man? Why would he demand that we suffer either physically or spiritualy? Why would he give us the ability to think and disbelieve in him in the first place? Saying that it is out of our control takes away the concsience and does not hold one accountable for his or her actions.
Correct me if I’m wrong but if I am athiest or agnostic, does that take me out of the running for being in that book? Because we all know that just because somebody doesn’t believe something, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.
Jean Cauvin,
“If somebody can prove me wrong, please do so. Simply provide that 2 volume book footnote around the time of the Council of Dort so that we will not have to throw his tape away.”
Your accusations have already been responded to here on BT the last time you raised this same issue. You were shown to be in error when we established that Morey did not say what you say he said.
It may have just slipped your memory, but I can assure you we handled it already.
Hi Glen~
Thanks for reading my post. I am new at this but I must say I love writing! May it be a blessing by God’s grace.
I agree…let us continue to encourage and pray for one another, Glen. I didn’t see your comment until this evening but I have no doubt that God accomplished His purposes in your preaching today!
Hi Mark~
Yes…you are right…leave it to us depraved…we can make an idol of anything! I have another family member who says “God is so sovereign He grants us freewill”! oh brother…
You and your family are a great blessing to our church body! May the Lord continue to reveal His treasures to us all in 2009.
Hi LOL~
Welcome to BT.
We are glad to visit with you and answer questions but we are not interested in meaningless chatter or quarrels. I have been following your other comments and am not sure your intentions are honorable so to speak! The Lord will reveal them in His timing…
I am happy to have Glen address the amazing doctrine of Predestination with you on this thread. He is a good brother in the Lord and will, by God’s grace, teach you much if you are open to learning and IF the Lord is pleased to open your heart.
There is much that could be said to you but, for tonight I will exhort you to spend less time thinking about the Lamb’s Book you often speak of and more time thinking about the Lamb.
You said it yourself: “Because we all know that just because somebody doesn’t believe something, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.”
I assure you God is real…may He be pleased to grant you the grace to believe.
LOL, you wrote:
“If a god is all powerful and all knowing then why would he have a good vs. the bad? Why would he make an imperfect man? Why would he demand that we suffer either physically or spiritualy? Why would he give us the ability to think and disbelieve in him in the first place? Saying that it is out of our control takes away the concsience and does not hold one accountable for his or her actions.”
My response to this is, so what? What’s the problem?
Hi Jean Cauvin~
It is obvious to all that you are very knowledgeable but there is no need to be unkind. Consider a portion of your comment:
“If these questions can’t be answered in your mind, or if this is above your head, then you are too emotional to grasp anything in relation to the spiritual (II Corinthians 2:14).”
I think you may have missed the point of this post! It is by God’s grace that any grasp His truths or receive His gift of Salvation, whether it is us Reformed or a seeker such as LOL.
I am compelled to let everyone know that you, Jean Cauvin, do not speak on behalf of this blog. Not to say that people have not been handled, at times, in a firm manner here, they have. But God help us to exercise grace!
By the way, I have a bit of a late Christmas present for you: I am not Cindy! Her and her son are my dear friends, however, I love them very much. But, I’m pretty sure you and I do not know one another.
Remember Jean…grace…
LOL,
Since God is our Creator and is infinitely holy, every offense against Him is deserving of eternal punishment in hell. Accountability is definitely in play, for the wages of sin is death. This punishment is paid, either by the offender or by Christ Himself. This is the beauty of His grace, that though we all deserve Hell, He has chosen to save some of us. We are all so thankful because undeservingly, this gracious God has shown us favor.
Ephesians 1:3-6 says:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved.”
And we praise His glorious grace indeed!
LOL, if you are an athiest or agnostic, we would all pray that the Lord one day open your eyes to the glory of His grace as well. We could never come to any absolute conclusions about God’s desire to save any one person. As long as one is living, there is hope. We can only look to God to change a person’s heart.
Reformed Mama, thanks so much for sharing your Christmas celebration with your family. We will keep you and your family in our prayers.
Thank you for your grace Reformed Mama. And thank you too Jean. I do not take his comments as an insult nor do I find them firm. I believe that Jean is very intelligent, probably more so that me. As you have seen with my mispelled words. I have even gone back on my statements in other posts after further research and finding out that I was wrong. I do find humor in certain religious beliefs and cultures. I can’t help that. And after reading the posts on Peter Popoff I made this name. I’m sure it was insulting to many and probably ill advised of me. I just acted in the moment. And after loads of debating it should probably read more along the lines of Truthseeker or Skeptic. And I have also said in other posts that I’m aware that I came to your forums and posted my “heretic words” and am man enough to take any criticism, name calling, or judgements passed on to me. These things don’t bother me. In fact they fuel me to research in order to find what I deem to be truth, or even prove people wrong.
I am dissapointed in Sir Aaron however. Your answer to my questions were not informative at all. I need these things explained to me, not dismissed with questions like “So what?”and “What’s the problem?”. My invitation is to anyone who wishes to answer my questions. I would, however, like a bit of insight.
Calvanism is brand new to me and I must admit I have been researching it for most of the night.
As I make my statements or pose my questions I only have my own experiences and research to rely on. As of right now I lean toward atheism / agnosticisim. I might be wrong or I might be right. I mean no personal attack at heart. It might seem that way in some of my postings but I truly want to know what is out there and so far I’ve found a more convincing arguement on the other side. I have read the bible and spent many years in different churches. Everything from Evangelical to baptist, penticostal, presbyterian, church of Christ and on down to alliance, independant and Catholic. Most of the 30 years were spent in baptist or penticostal churches. This is why I am so inquisitive about Calvanism. I have never heard of it before.
Thank you for your kindness and patience.
It wasn’t Sir Aaron, it was me that replied.
The point is that you have not stated a problem. I’d be happy to respond to you if you can tell me what the problem is.
You are right. I apologize to both you and Sir Aaron. I would like you to take each question and answer them with an explanation as to why you believe your answer.
LOL,
We can take one at a time. You asked:
“If you believe in predestination and don’t believe in free will then why does any of this matter? Why does anything we do matter? If you believe that This list of names was created before creation, which is contradictory in itself, and there is no changing this list, then why would it matter what you believe if you have zero control over it?”
How do you establish the premise that predestination destroys meaning? And what do you mean by “meaning (matter)?” How is a list of names created before creation contradictory in itself? How do you establish the premise that Free Will preserves meaning? What is Free Will? Please define your terms and make rational objections.
Christians do not have any need to fear objections from skeptics. Most of the time the skeptics merely repeat other skeptics objections and cannot rationally frame the objections themselves. This is why I ask.
Great Post RM. May God continue to use you for His Glory. All we can do is really pray for our unsaved Family Members.
Stephen are you answering his questions or asking him to answer them for you? It seems to me that he needs it broken down for him in the explanations instead of asking him to define things or question him. And I think he refers to creation as the beginning of time and therefor how could something be made before creation.
Bill,
I am asking him questions that are logically prior to his questions and any answers to them. I am not going to grant him any assumptions at this point. If there is a valid conflict between predestination and meaning, a conflict solved and preserved by Free Will, then he needs to justify it in writing so that we can evaluate it rather than simply granting him such an assumption.
He needs to establish the premise that for man to have meaning (or what he does matters) he must have Free Will. He then needs to establish the premise that for man to be without Free Will is to be without meaning, iow, nothing matters.
After establishing those two premises, he needs to establish how those two premises necessarily produce the conclusion that predestination is false.
He must provide a valid argument for each premise in order to establish them. This requires having coherent and relevant definitions for all the words and expressions involved, such as “meaning,” “matter,” Free Will,” “control,” etc.
If he fails to do any of this, then there is logically no objection for me to answer. If he has never considered these necessary questions, then he is not nearly as rational as he thought.
He writes, “so far I’ve found a more convincing arguement on the other side.” In reference to challenges directed at him he writes, “they fuel me to research in order to find what I deem to be truth, or even prove people wrong.”
Consider these questions as high octane fuel to fuel the fire of his research. And be cautious not to leave a canister of high octane fuel too close to the fire for too long – it just might heat up to the point of explosion and destroy the foundation upon which the bonfire rests.
This method of questioning is taught in detail by a friend of mine (Vince Cheung) that has had far more experience with skeptics than I have. His website is here.
In some places, my questions are *exact quotes* from his book “Apologetics in Conversation.”
ReformedMama,
I can relate to the heart pounding and heightened adrenaline (sp) when confronting a huge topic like God’s sovereignty with someone who is hostile toward it. You keep standing for Truth RM. There is NO reason any of us should cower and hide when this topic comes up, although its easy to do (especially around the holidays). But you know, if others are so bold as to reveal their hostility toward biblical truth while claiming HIS name as their own. calling Jesus “Master” (aka Lord) yet refusing HIS lordship, we should be just as bold (even bolder) for proclaiming Scripture and truth to those who say they want it.
I continue to see professing Christians who revile against the Lordship of the Lord. As Scripture clearly states, bowing to HIS lordship and authority is necessary:
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
I believe this is why the Narrow road is so narrow, and why so few find it: they refuse to bow to Christ and His authority. Those who have the Spirit of Truth in them will accept His authority and rejoice in biblical truth. If they don’t, they need to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith.
Hi Bill Leaver~
Welcome.
Don’t let Stephen’s modesty fool you…he has been at this a long time. He is well studied and knows what he’s doing. We like to make people think here. After all our Messiah modeled this and we want to be like Him, by God’s grace. Don’t be concerned for LOL, he’s already said he’s a big boy and can handle it! I think the forthcoming discussions may be very fruitful, God-willing.
Creation, here in our world, as we know it, is the beginning of time for us, from our perspective. God, however, is outside of time and can do what He pleases! His word tells us amazing things such as that He prepared good works for us to do before the foundation of the world! (Eph.1:4,2:10) A-ma-zing!!
Thanks, guys.
I, out of pity I guess, was just trying to throw him a bone. I wonder if he will take an atheistic view of these terms or a religious one. It should be interesting because of the different views could answer these questions in different ways. I’m betting on the atheistic view myself.
However, it should make for an interesting read. And bless those who search for truth and by grace might they find it in the Lord.
Bill
You make a good point. This can be answered from two different perspectives.
Stephen
Which perspective would you like me to use in answering these questions? I do have a religious background so I don’t mind going in that direction. Or I can answer you from an atheistic/agnostic point of view.
Bill said “I, out of pity I guess, was just trying to throw him a bone.”
Thanks Bill, Not sure what the pity is for though.
Unless you establish the premise that you’re schizophrenic, I ask you to answer from your perspective (whichever “one” it is).
Remember, you have already stated that according to “a” method of research you have “found a more convincing arguement [sic] on the other side.”
I ask for you to be rational and consistent. Rather than trying to ride off in opposite directions while on one horse, focus first on getting the horse to move.
You are the one that sees a problem with predestination and meaning. I do not. So, as stated to Bill about you in my previous post,
Quote: He needs to establish the premise that for man to have meaning (or what he does matters) he must have Free Will. He then needs to establish the premise that for man to be without Free Will is to be without meaning, iow, nothing matters.
After establishing those two premises, he needs to establish how those two premises necessarily produce the conclusion that predestination is false.
He must provide a valid argument for each premise in order to establish them. This requires having coherent and relevant definitions for all the words and expressions involved, such as “meaning,” “matter,” Free Will,” “control,” etc.
If he fails to do any of this, then there is logically no objection for me to answer. If he has never considered these necessary questions, then he is not nearly as rational as he thought.
Hi LOL…
If you are a “consistent” Skeptic, then there is no way for you to know truth even if it hit you in the face. Thus, your refutations are invalid since they claim to “know” about the falsification of various propositions.
The empiricists towards the philosophy of science, Karl Popper (d. 1994) discussed the issue of truth. For something to be true, empirically speaking, then that proposition must have the means to be falsified ALONG with verified. And since Skepticism cannot be falsified or verified within the Skeptical “system” itself (refutation is possible outside of Skepticism/Empiricism), then according to Popper’s empiricism, you have no system and are wandering in the desert about to be eaten by Crows.
This is why David Hume’s empiricism was actually Skepticism. And this is why Immanuel Kant had such an easy means to refute his empiricism as Skepticism and thus no system at all.
Only the Christian system can allow you to make intelligible understanding of the world around you via taxonomical understanding and articulation of that understanding.
The Logic, Dialectic and Rhetoric therefore is only possible within the Christian system.
If consistency is your goal, then you must be as Heraclitus’ disciple was. No one steps in the same river twice, thus by the time the speaker speaks, and by the time the sound of his communication reaches the hearer, the meaning has changed and thus no communication of thought is possible.
He lived a life of silence as I advice you to do.
You must determine what and where you are before you can begin asking questions about truth. For if the position you stand is unknown, then the reception of communication will be unknown via taxonomical placement.
In regards to Reformed MaMa, I didn’t think you would be offended since I assumed you as a man. Most women are very fluffy and don’t like hurting peoples feelings. This is an example as to why women should not be pastors or elders of the Church (to emotional)
I’ve only seen Cindy a long time ago at a book table during a apologetic type “conference.” She was odd. I have no idea why you differentiated her name with yours.
If you think I’m hard, read Bondage of the Will or read Calvin’s rebuttal against that “Old Scholastic” Scumbag.
Of course, this is not ALL of women. Some are more logical then some men, but this is rare.
There is no need to discuss the logical fallacy of Reformed MaMa at this point since her points are invalid. But she seems very nice and I am looking forward to her present.
I guess I forgot that conversation about Morey’s footnote. If we discussed it before, so be it.
LOL, What is your philosophical stance so that way we can have a fruitful conversation. Of course, if your goal was to B.S, then disregard logic and embrace absurdity with full gusto (Schleiermacher)
Okay, LOL, what is your philosophical worldview so we can enter the gates of intelligence.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Hi LOL,
One more thing. We cannot discuss Predestination until we discuss the logical sequence of that which is before.
It is absurd to discuss the subject X, Y, Z, before we discuss the subject A, B, C.
The A, B, C subjects are above. We need to understand our philosophical “stances” so as to prevent fallacies and language barriers. We need to know where we are both coming from and then proceed from there.
You want to jump via a leap of faith into things without establishing the basic things. This is like studying Calculus before you learn Long Division or Multiplication. This will cause confusion or chaos.
Christianity is not a Leap of Faith so you must abandon this type of thinking.
So if you would like to “WORK” our way up to the subject via logical sequence, let’s go! Otherwise, if BS is going to be your forte, then go hump a tree.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean Cauvin said: “I guess I forgot that conversation about Morey’s footnote. If we discussed it before, so be it.”
Yes, we discussed it. Below is the documentation from a thread earlier this year where you, me, and Morey not only discussed it but put it to rest. WalMart currently has a sale on Head & Shoulders dandruff shampoo. I believe the sale is two for one.
—–
4/18/08
Jean Cauvin said:
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
—-
4/18/08
I said:
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.
—-
4/19/08
Jean Cauvin said:
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.
—–
4/20/08
Morey said:
Jean Cauvin
I was using an illustration that the Reformed 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.
—–
4/20/08
Jean Cauvin said:
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
—–
Jean, your remarks to Reformed Mama and about Cindy are inconsistent with a profession of faith. They further validate Reformed Mama’s statement that you do not represent the views of BT. Talk to a pastor about this, if you know one, a Christian, if you know one, or Dana, or any other human being that likewise professes Christ as Lord. Ask them to help you. I’m afraid that no one here can. This is not to say that we have tried.
Stephen,
Thanks for digging that back up. The RSS comment and content options have been “out of commission” for about 6 months (at least on my system). My memory slipped on that one.
Regarding Grace and not representing B.T. that’s fine. My language is much calmer then Morey’s when he defends the faith. The humping a tree comment was not mean but is rather consistent among the new-age environmentalists. For all we know, perhaps this is a positions he may choose.
I don’t hump trees, the wacko left does.
If my rhetoric is causing other Christians on here to stumble, I will tone it down for the weaker in the Faith. Some people are simply not able to handle Hard-Core bluntness, and that is fine.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
p.s. If I were to tell you that I’m a Pastor I suppose that would be a paradigm shift of “oy veys.”
Personally, I liked the tree-humping reference.
I said that your remarks (specifically) “to” Reformed Mama and “about” Cindy were “inconsistent with a profession of faith.”
I do not consider your comments to be merely “hard-core bluntness.”
I meant no offense. I was simply relaying my experience at the apologetic table.
In regards to emotional women. I believe that logically applies to Reformed MaMa. This is not disrespectful but is simply outlined within the economical structure of Scripture and this is why the woman is a weaker vessel.
Morey I believe would agree with me. Thus I believe it is a profession of faith and do find Reformed MaMa, respectfully illogical and somewhat emotional on SOME of her comments.
If she disagrees, allow her to respond logically and I’ll apologize. Otherwise, we can move on.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean,
I can’t believe that the stance on the explanation of one’s beliefs should require me to have a label of some sort. If I were a newly reformed calvinist with the same questions would I get the same prerequisite? Or would you take me under your wing and teach to me the truth of your beliefs? Instead of simply answering these questions you play a game of chess. Is it in hope that I tire of research or explanation and discontinue my posting of questions?
Stephen and Jean,
I simply asked questions of enlightenment in order to better understand the Calvinistic beliefs and you tell me to define words? Did you not understand the questions? I know this probably follows a system of debunking outsiders in order to get your points across but come on. These are very simple questions. At least to me they are. Jean basically says that if I don’t already know then I don’t have the capacity to know and will never be able to know the answers. How can you convert people to the Calvinistic beliefs when you treat people like that? Why should I go somewhere else to get information on questions that I have asked you about what you believe? That makes no sense. Why is it so hard to answer my questions? Is it because they are coming from me?
At least with other denominations of christianity people will tell you what they believe and why the believe it. Usually without having to be asked. I’m basically being told that I need to be a scholar to be a Calvinist christian. Are these the only people that are allowed onto the list in the book of life?
I thought about answering your questions from my point of view, but after thought, considered the outcome. I would never get any answers to the questions I posted because you would think that the answers would be either over my head or because they might be easily refuted.
Either way it’s a smoke and mirror tactic to require me to define words such as matter, meaning, free will and control. It delays you having to answer the questions and gives you an opportunity to change the subject to debate my definitions. I could ask these questions to any other faith and if they honestly wanted me to know what they believe they would simply take each question and answer it. It is simply a tactic of dodging the questions which just tries to draw this out and get nowhere.
Judge not lest ye be judged. Isn’t that in the bible?
And to Jean,
On a side note. It is the year 2008 and almost 2009. Step into our century please and allow the equality of women to be recognized. One was almost our president and another was almost our vice president. Get over your narcicistic male ego and realize that your norm isn’t the norm of everyone else.The ladies that have posted here have been very respectful of everyone else on these forums and have added intelligent conversation as well. If downing others makes you feel better about yourself then I agree with Stephen. You need to talk to somebody who can provide some perspective about your place in the scheme of things.
“respectfully”
p.s. If I were to tell you that I’m a Pastor I suppose that would be a paradigm shift of “oy veys.”
Try me.
Tell me (if you are or aren’t) and we’ll see.
Stephen,
Was that last posting meant for me?
Nevermind, I didn’t scroll up far enough lol.
LOL, you asked:
“If I were a newly reformed calvinist with the same questions would I get the same prerequisite? Or would you take me under your wing and teach to me the truth of your beliefs?”
I would do the latter. Of course this is contingent upon the “if” in your question. Since you have stated that you are not, but rather a skeptic, I cannot assume that anything you say is even intelligent. How can you search for a solution to a problem of which you have entirely no knowledge of at all?
“Instead of simply answering these questions you play a game of chess. Is it in hope that I tire of research or explanation and discontinue my posting of questions?”
Until you embrace the truth of Scripture and believe what it says about God, man, the world, our purpose, etc., you will indeed tirelessly pursue answers for the rest of your life – never to find any answer other than “all is meaningless.” You are outside of the only system of truth that exists in the universe. Since you have stated that you have followed some sort of system of discovery in research, it is being asked of you to reveal what they are. In order for your conclusions to be accepted as valid, we need to evaluate the methods that you used in order to reach those conclusions. Unless you begin with valid premises, how can your conclusions be valid?
To this point, you have not even stated a problem. How am I to answer an objection that isn’t even raised in a valid way?
Example Question: Well before I answer your 9 questions, we must first discuss the belief of Predestination. If you believe in predestination and don’t believe in free will then why does any of this matter? Why does anything we do matter?
Example Answer (in the form of a question): Are you saying that in order for anything to matter we must believe in Free Will?
The question contains presuppositions that we do not share in common. I do not believe that the pagan Greek concept called “Free Will” is true. Why not? Because I believe, according to Scripture, that God, Maker of Heaven and earth, has foreordained all things to come to pass according to His eternal Decree. Furthermore, the Bible states that the pagan Greeks that invented that idea were not speaking truth from God. Therefore I have concluded that “Free Will” is a convention of man that was produced from a false view of reality and knowledge. Therefore the attempt to use it to explain anything in the name of truth is invalid.
You have yet to even lay out any basic case for why you believe anything at all. The above is not a formal argument, but you can see that it at least adheres to the rules of logic. My starting point is transparent, and my conclusion is validly deduced from the premise. Would you rather have me respond in an irrational way and say that predestination is true because it just is? Would you prefer the answer, “predestination is true because the Bible says it is?”
If you’re going to be taken seriously as a somewhat credible challenge to the Reformed faith, then you at least need to state your objections rationally.
There are some things that as an unbeliever cannot understand, and I am fully aware of this. What I am doing is challenging you, yourself, to be epistemologically self-conscious. I want you to examine whether or not you have beliefs that are or aren’t justified. I already know that you don’t, but until you see this yourself, you’re not ready for any truth other than you’re condemned, on your way to hell for eternal conscious torment, and need Jesus as your only hope for escape. But this probably sounds like foolishness to you, right?
LOL, you said:
“Either way it’s a smoke and mirror tactic to require me to define words such as matter, meaning, free will and control. It delays you having to answer the questions and gives you an opportunity to change the subject to debate my definitions.”
It’s not so much about words, it’s more about the meanings attributed to the words. Words are merely empty symbols that have meanings assigned to them. This makes them “culturally-conditioned” and relative in the philosophic sense. When you use words in a certain order to form a sentence to express your thought, you open yourself up to the logical request for definitions. In our pluralistic society it is subrational and absurd to assume that all words have universal meanings accepted by all men everywhere.
P.S. Asking a question of someone to define their terms is not a red herring as you have said. It is sometimes logically necessary in order to proceed in rational discourse.
I would also like to add my apologies to Reformed Mama. It seems as though my origional questions that were meant to Glen have taken over your post. This was not my intention. If we need to move this discussion to another topic I will be happy to follow.
Ok Stephen,
“To this point, you have not even stated a problem. How am I to answer an objection that isn’t even raised in a valid way?”
I never said it was a problem. I simply asked what and why you believe what you believe. It was never mentioned that I had a specific objection to this. Only that I wanted to understand and in dialogue discuss these beliefs with someone who believed the things I read about Calvinism.
“I do not believe that the pagan Greek concept called “Free Will” is true. Why not? Because I believe, according to Scripture, that God, Maker of Heaven and earth, has foreordained all things to come to pass according to His eternal Decree. Furthermore, the Bible states that the pagan Greeks that invented that idea were not speaking truth from God. Therefore I have concluded that “Free Will” is a convention of man that was produced from a false view of reality and knowledge. Therefore the attempt to use it to explain anything in the name of truth is invalid.”
This is a perfect example of simply answering and explaining you answer. Great job and thank you for that. Wow! That was like pulling teeth lol.
It still seems as though you are not open to converting people to Calvinism. Or is there s certain requirement to being a prospective candidate of Calvinistic christianity?
If so, what are these requirements? Why should I be treated with exceptional disdain instead of actually trying to help me understand? If you truely believe what you believe then why not share your belief instead of telling me that since I don’t believe in the scripture I won’t get it?
It seems as though you are more interested in proving me wrong than in proving yourself right. I agree that in some questions there needs to be definitions of some words in order to make sure that we are on the same page. But in this case, if you don’t truly understand the context of the words that I used then I have highly overestimated you.
You are very skilled in debating these issues and are no doubt, an intelligent man. I have never once claimed that you didn’t know what you were talking about. I merely questioned your tactics in sidestepping my questions. Now if you would only continue on with your answers like you did in the quotation from you that I added here we can move on.
As far as why I believe what I believe.
As I have said in previous posts, I have spent nearly 30 years in various denominations while I lived my life as a devout christian. I would have been on the other side of these questions about a year ago.
I have been disappointed time and time again with the actions of those I looked to for spiritual guidence. I know that I should not put faith in man but in god however when you have had a preacher or pastor of your church go to jail for embezzlement, or caught cheating on his wife with the Sunday school director (who was a woman) or got caught cheating on his wife with a 17 year old boy, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth when these men claimed to stand for Jesus and the scripture. I left churches and joined new ones and continued to have feelings of doubt. Looking back I realized that all of those feelings and actions that I had or did were not divine in thier origin but self-induced.
A freind of mine introduced me to the Zeitgeist documentary and it really opened my eyes. Now I know that some of the sources for that movie have been proven false. It still made me think about a posibility of it all being a system of control. So I started my research on this topic. I read excerpts from books and visited websites and watched numerous debates online. I also studied scientific findings and found out that the theory of evolutions is widely excepted in the scientific community. I couldn’t beleive it. They had proof!!! The more I studied and researched the more I thought how rediculous it had all been. I also asked myself if I were not to have been raised in a christian home would I have chosen christianity as my belief? More and more the answer was coming back as no.
I never claimed to be an expert but the more I’d think about the opportunities that men had to take christianity and use it to propagate their own agendas it made me sick in my stomach. It suddenly became clear that these things were more likely than a talking snake, a man living in a big fish for 3 days, or someone being ressurected from the dead. The more I have researched the origin of the bible the more I find controversy over how it became the end all be all scripture sent from god. With all the books not included in the final canon and the contradictions found within the gospels alone I could not bring myself to believe it divine.
And as far as me landing here…..
I was up late one night with my 1 year old son who had awaken in the middle of the night. My wife leaves the TV on for him to have a background noise so that he is conforted. Well on the screen was a man who was telling me that I needed to send off for my free “Miracle Mana Loaf” named Peter Popoff. I listened to him out of humor for the entire length of his info-mercial. The next day I figured I would search him on the internet. What I found was absolutely amazing. He had been found out over 20 years ago when he was duping people by claiming to heal people who showed up to his sermons. He would list specific details that were fed to him via a microphone and ear piece that he and his wife would use to read the information cards that everyone had filled out. They were busted by a group of guys who brought in a frequency finder and recorded everything she was saying.
One of the sites I landed on was yours here. The rest is history.
I hope this is sufficient enough for you to determine that I have the capacity to understand your answers. You might not think I will believe them. I just hope that this is enough for you to realize that I did not get to where I’m at easily. Nor was it a quick and rash decision that I made in anger or dismay. To this day it is still a painful emotion feeling that 30 years of my life could have been spent in other more “meaningful” ways.
Lil Sis, Rosie and Denise~
Thanks for the love!
May we women, by God’s grace, be …”dressed with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God”(1 Tim.2:10).
xo
LOL,
If you’re still around in a couple hours I’ll pick this back up and interact with your previous couple of posts…I’m off to a late dinner!
But when I get back I will read your post slowly and offer up a meaningful response.
Stephen,
Thanks and good eats!
“It still seems as though you are not open to converting people to Calvinism. Or is there s certain requirement to being a prospective candidate of Calvinistic christianity? If so, what are these requirements?”
***Since Calvinism is a consistent expression of biblical Christianity, and since biblical Christianity is made up of individuals that profess faith in the Christ as the substitution for their righteousness and sin, then yes, there would be a requirement – a profession of faith in Christ. This means that you have acknowledged the impossibility of ever getting God to turn away his wrath from you based on anything you have, can, or will ever do. It means that you have ceased attempting to earn God’s favor whatsoever because you realize he views them as nothing but soiled rags. In this condition of despair and dependence produced by God the Holy Spirit, the truth of God is revealed through the preaching of the gospel that God has provided a way – one way. He has sent His son to be born of a virgin in space/time history, and this son grows up to be Jesus the Christ who would die on a cross, be buried, and raised on the third day by the power of God according to the Scriptures. It means believing that the Christ, Jesus, suffered and died in your place as a substitute in receiving the wrath of God that you earned and deserve. The work of Christ becomes the object of faith and produces the assurance that when you stand before God on judgment day, that God will not view you in terms of your own sin, rather, on the basis of Jesus’ righteousness earned in his perfect, sinless life on earth. This faith will also produce a trust in God and his word where you will learn all the particularities of what happened to you (i.e. election, regeneration, conversion, etc.). But an unbeliever will not be able to understand these things. The Scripture says that the natural man (unregenerated unbeliever) cannot understand spiritual things because they are spiritually discerned. God must reveal himself to the sinner, the sinner will never find him for it is not him for whom the sinner looks – none seek God.
“Why should I be treated with exceptional disdain instead of actually trying to help me understand? If you truely believe what you believe then why not share your belief instead of telling me that since I don’t believe in the scripture I won’t get it?”
***If you want understanding, you need to go to God. You won’t get it from me or from anyone else. We are simple agents used as dispensable tools for God’s glory. So, if you gain any understanding through your dealings with me, I am not to be given credit. God is. Now, he has given gifts to the church including teachers, of which I profess to be, but it is only by the equipping of the Holy Spirit that any of my efforts in teaching take root and actually produce fruit. If I am left to myself, I am nothing but a blundering idiot with fruitless crops. I will share with you what I believe the Bible to teach, but unless you are regenerate you will not understand things that are spiritually discerned. However, understanding them is an indication of regeneration – the assurance of salvation can come through the understanding of spiritual things. I tell this when ministering to people that aren’t sure they’re saved.
“It seems as though you are more interested in proving me wrong than in proving yourself right. I agree that in some questions there needs to be definitions of some words in order to make sure that we are on the same page. But in this case, if you don’t truly understand the context of the words that I used then I have highly overestimated you.”
***If you pose as a skeptic and raise objections to the faith here on BT, then yes, I am mostly interested in proving you wrong. I do this for a few reasons. 1) There are less mature individuals that read here that may not be able to see through a skeptic’s challenge like I can by God’s grace. My goal is to shut the mouth of the opponent by pointing out the irrationality of the skeptic’s worldview. 2) Because I am not interested in proving myself right. I do not have doubts about whether I’m right or wrong. I believe I hold the ultimate presupposition of belief, that is, that the Bible is the word of God and is fully authoritative in matters of doctrine (what to believe) and morals (how to live) and is authoritative and true because God authored it and he is truth itself, and ought to be received because it is the word of God. (See WCF 1.4) And 3) I answer fools according to their folly lest I become like them myself, and I don’t answer fools according to their folly lest they become wise in their own eyes (Prov. 26:4-5). Think about #3, it comes from the most wise man ever to live!
***As far as underestimating me, unless you view me as a violent offender of God worthy of eternal destruction, yet saved by the blood of Jesus and viewed perfect by God in spite of all my faults, then you will indeed overestimate me. I’m just a sinner saved by grace. That’s my only claim to fame. I boast, but it is boasting in the Lord for the things he has given to me for my glory. I have no stand alone natural glory. Only continual evil.
Next I’ll reply to the second half of your post.
LOL~
A couple of points:
No apologies are necessary for your comments. I am happy to have this discussion going…it’s what we’re here for. I’m sure Glen will pop in when he’s able but he does have a crazy-busy life! In the meantime you can ask Stephen anything. He will make you think though…no easy ride here. I always learn from him so I’ll be interested to read what he writes to you.
Secondly, I’m sure you have noted Jean Cauvin to be quite a unique individual. Please don’t assume most Christians are like him. He is partially correct about one thing he said that you commented on. Women are not to be elders/pastors in church life, not because of emotions though! Christ set up a leadership structure in which each have their responsibilities before Him, for His glory and our good.
Lastly, Calvinism/Christianity are not beliefs we can convert you or anyone else to. You must be called by the Holy Spirit and you will know if you are being called, not us. Our role is to share God’s Truth with love and grace. Don’t misunderstand the word love though…this does not mean mushy, feel good…it involves firm correction and Biblical truth which you will receive here!
“As I have said in previous posts, I have spent nearly 30 years in various denominations while I lived my life as a devout christian. I would have been on the other side of these questions about a year ago.”
***I wonder if you have realized that you have admitted that your “Christian experiences” were “not divine in origin but self-induced,” and therefore your claims to have been a “devout Christian” are nothing more than a thirty-year series of self-induced religious actions. I say this to awaken you to the fact that from the Christian perspective we acknowledge and recognize that false professions of faith are made and the church is filled with unregenerate people claiming to be Christians. It is no surprise to hear that you have had horrific church experience as seen in your following paragraph.
“I have been disappointed time and time again with the actions of those I looked to for spiritual guidence. I know that I should not put faith in man but in god however when you have had a preacher or pastor of your church go to jail for embezzlement, or caught cheating on his wife with the Sunday school director (who was a woman) or got caught cheating on his wife with a 17 year old boy, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth when these men claimed to stand for Jesus and the scripture.”
***From the biblical perspective, I can interpret your difficulties/impossibilities in living out in real life what you “know” in your head. You “know” that you should not put faith in man but in God, but you lack the power to carry it out. You show that although you “know” not to, you still do it. And the result? You have moved away from that which you have placed faith in. But since your faith was never in the person and work of Christ for the forgiveness of your sin and your justification before God, then you have experienced the painful backlash that comes with potentially anything you put faith in that will fade and burn. In the Christian worldview, we compare faith in Christ above all else as “standing on a solid rock!” We also declare that all other ground is quicksand. We even have a song about it! And your pastor’s actions do not surprise me at all because I know from the Bible that people are wicked and evil, and that even the intentions of their thoughts are that way continually. Only by the same power that God raised Jesus from the dead can a person do what they know to be right. We call it tapping in to the resurrection power!!! The infinite power source of divine supply!!!
“I left churches and joined new ones and continued to have feelings of doubt. Looking back I realized that all of those feelings and actions that I had or did were not divine in thier origin but self-induced.”
***It’s good that you left, but I question whether you joined a biblically based New Covenant church that teaches sound (healthy) doctrine. Pastors are commanded to teach “hugiainouse didaskalia,” which is Greek for “sound and healthy doctrine” as found in Titus 2:1. The fact that you continued to have doubt once removed from your old church may indicate a problem within you rather than the churches (although the one you described, no doubt, must have been awful). Doubt affirms the lack of assurance, and Scripture says that the elect believer has full assurance if accompanied by sound doctrine. We also know that only the Holy Spirit can produce assurance since it is an element of salvation. Not to bore you with the technical details, but, if you joined a church with “unhealthy doctrine” then it should be no surprise to learn that as a result you became spiritually unhealthy too. Either that or like you said, it was all self-induced behavioral chores, more of a psychological experience than a spiritual one.
“A freind of mine introduced me to the Zeitgeist documentary and it really opened my eyes. Now I know that some of the sources for that movie have been proven false.”
***Yes, you were ripe for the picking and they got you at the right time. Notice how they cannot affect a spiritually healthy believer in the fold of God. But the wounded, yup, they snatch ‘em right up. But we refuted that nonsense anyway. I’m glad to hear that you have lessened your opinions of Zeitgeist. From an academic perspective it has no merit whatsoever. it only dupes those that deserve to be duped.
“It still made me think about a posibility of it all being a system of control. So I started my research on this topic. I read excerpts from books and visited websites and watched numerous debates online. I also studied scientific findings and found out that the theory of evolutions is widely excepted in the scientific community. I couldn’t beleive it. They had proof!!! The more I studied and researched the more I thought how rediculous it had all been. I also asked myself if I were not to have been raised in a christian home would I have chosen christianity as my belief? More and more the answer was coming back as no.”
On display is the same thing that keeps getting you into trouble. You have placed a blind and irrational faith in man via the testimony of scientists regarding their findings according to the scientific method. Where is the proof? What is the proof? How do you know that the scientific method is a valid method of discovering truth about reality. Can the statement that declares that the scientific method is valid be scientifically verified according to the scientific method? Do you see the major problems with this kind of “thought?” Also, if adultery were widely accepted in the scientific community would you become an advocate for that too? C’mon, this way of thinking is destructive to knowledge in general. You raise a good point though at the end. Let it be known that the Bible affirms a similar statement:
“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13 ESV)
Salvation is not inherited from being born into a Christian home, nor is it guaranteed… The above text denies salvation by blood and free will, and affirms the Calvinistic soteriology that claims only by God can one become His child.
“The more I have researched the origin of the bible the more I find controversy over how it became the end all be all scripture sent from god. With all the books not included in the final canon and the contradictions found within the gospels alone I could not bring myself to believe it divine.”
***I seriously question how thorough your research has been in this field. I even doubt that you have gone beyond the popular shallow level. In order to determine your level of sophistication in the realm of TC, can you tell me which witness is preferred for the Ephesians Greek text, P46 or P16? Don’t bother googling it, the answer is tucked away in a textual apparatus available to scholars and probably not online. Very little reliable information exists on the Internet regarding TC. P.S. Do you know what TC is? As far as your research on the canon, when do you suppose the “final canon” was decided? And what are the contradictions in the gospels? And what methods did you use to discover the apparent contradictions? Do you agree or disagree with redaction critics? Or you can simply pass if want to and waive it off as foolishness. My point in raising these issues is to put the challenge back on the skeptic to justify these claims. The same old tired and refuted arguments seem to continue to arise. And please, do not quote Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code.
“And as far as me landing here…..
I was up late one night with my 1 year old son who had awaken in the middle of the night. My wife leaves the TV on for him to have a background noise so that he is conforted. Well on the screen was a man who was telling me that I needed to send off for my free “Miracle Mana Loaf” named Peter Popoff. I listened to him out of humor for the entire length of his info-mercial. The next day I figured I would search him on the internet. What I found was absolutely amazing. He had been found out over 20 years ago when he was duping people by claiming to heal people who showed up to his sermons. He would list specific details that were fed to him via a microphone and ear piece that he and his wife would use to read the information cards that everyone had filled out. They were busted by a group of guys who brought in a frequency finder and recorded everything she was saying.
One of the sites I landed on was yours here. The rest is history.”
Popoff is a false prophet and should be denounced by all Christians. I am aware of the entire scandal, in fact, the post you initially landed on was in rebuke of that wolf.
Lastly (for tonight),
As it pertains to Calvinism, we affirm what the Bible says about how a sinner enters into a saving union with the Christ – that it must be revealed to him by God. And though we don’t know you, LOL, or even your name, you should know that saints are praying for your salvation at this very moment. Please let us know if God answers our prayers. We love to rejoice in giving God praise for saving a lost sinner.
“But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matt. 16:15b-17 ESV).
“All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” (Matt. 11:27 ESV)
Other less consistent expressions of Christianity teach that a sinner enters into a “relationship” with God by repeating the sinner’s prayer (which is not found anywhere in the Bible), raising a hand during an altar call (which is not found anywhere in the Bible), or by being raised in a “Christian home” (which is denied in the Bible), and so on.
Calvinism/Reformed Theology/Biblical Christianity rejects these unbiblical ideas and places full dependence on God to save whom he has elected according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, just like it says in the Bible.
“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will..” (Eph. 1:11 ESV)
Stephen,
2 quick things for now.
First. I never said that I was a devout christian. I was very careful about saying that. I said that I lived the life of one. There is a huge difference. And I never put my faith into man but into god. The actions of the 3 different preachers at different churches was merely a blow to that faith. And that directly ties into the corruption of those who use the bible to influence people to do thier own will.
Second. You mention this verse.
“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will..” (Eph. 1:11 ESV)
In this instance he is referreing to the nation of Israel, who he preordaned as his chosen people. Not to all of mankind. The inheretence of the kingdom of heaven was reserved in this instance for his Jewish people. This mistake happens when verses are “cherry picked” and taken out of contex.
I will get back to you later on your excellent post(s). You have made some very interesting points and have provided insight into what my questions were aimed at, Calvinism/reformed faith.
I will delve into this further as I have time today.
Thank you
LOL said “‘In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will..’ (Eph. 1:11 ESV)
In this instance he is referreing to the nation of Israel, who he preordaned as his chosen people. Not to all of mankind. The inheretence of the kingdom of heaven was reserved in this instance for his Jewish people. This mistake happens when verses are “cherry picked” and taken out of contex.”
Sir Aaron: LOL, from where did you obtain this faulty view? Since you mention context, let me place the entire chapter before us:
Eph 1:1-23
(1) Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus:
(2) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
(4) just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
(5) He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
(6) to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
(7) In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
(8) which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight
(9) He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him
(10) with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
(11) also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,
(12) to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
(13) In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
(14) who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.
(15) For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints,
(16) do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers;
(17) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.
(18) I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,
(19) and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might
(20) which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
(21) far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
(22) And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,
(23) which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
In the first verse, Paul tells us whom his audience is: the Saints at Ephesus and those faithful in Jesus Christ. So just from looking at the very FIRST verse in this book and chapter, you and I can clearly see that he isn’t addressing just Jews but all believers. Then in the following verses he immediately talks about “us” and “we.” Again, clearly the subject of “we” is Paul and the believers to whom he is addressing. Paul says “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.” So clearly, Paul is not talking about just the nation of Isreal but ALL believers. And clearly he says that He chose us before the foundation of the world.
In verse 12, Paul uses “who were the first to hope in Christ” in apposition to “we.” Some commentators (and I emphasize “some”) state that at verse 12, Paul starts making a differentation between “we”, the first believers or first believing Jews and then in verse 13, “you”…the Gentile believers that followed. A fewer number of commentators link Verses 11 and 12 with the same reference for “we.” But even if you accept this explanation, it is still clear from the chapter (as well as the rest of the letter) that Paul is saying that both Jew and Gentile are included in salvation through Christ and the inheritance thereof. Both Jewish and Gentile believers came to Christ, not through any effort on their own, but by the election by the good will and grace of God. God made a plan before the foundation of the world and deliberately set it into effect. And that included the election of both Jewish and Gentile believers. Therefore, no person, Jew or Gentile, can boast of himself or his lineage because it is by God’s grace alone that anybody is saved.
I’m sure Stephen will add onto my limited exegesis, he being more skilled than I.
As an addendum, LOL, you said in one of your posts: “Judge not lest ye be judged. Isn’t that in the bible.”
Is it? I really don’t understand why you should expect us to answer every question just because you throw it out there. You have access to a Bible and could easily look up verses and related commentary yourself. We could spend forever simply giving you answers to questions such as “doesn’t the Bible say this?” I mean you could make up something and then say “doesn’t the Bible say this?” Are we supposed to simply answer any question? I think several people have been trying to answer your questions but we do expect you to do a little work yourself.
LOL,
You wrote:
“First. I never said that I was a devout christian. I was very careful about saying that. I said that I lived the life of one. There is a huge difference.”
I’m in absolute agreement here. I caught it, and that is why I pointed out that you were not (ontologically) a devout Christian, rather, just one who was temporarily conforming to the externals; going through the outward motions so to speak while being (ontologically) unregenerate. That is why your testimony is not accepted as an authentic, genuine, reliable representation of Christian experience.
“And I never put my faith into man but into god.”
Objection, your Honor, on the grounds that the Bible states that only those in union with Christ have access to God and that the prayers of the wicked go unheard.
Sustained.
“In this instance he is referreing to the nation of Israel, who he preordaned as his chosen people. Not to all of mankind. The inheretence of the kingdom of heaven was reserved in this instance for his Jewish people. This mistake happens when verses are “cherry picked” and taken out of contex.”
Sir Aaron’s exegesis will suffice, for now. What I am requesting from you at this point is your exegetical argument including a brief description of your hermeneutical principles. As an example, I will lay out my methods for you. I am using the Historical-grammatical method.
Even if your interpretation is correct, it is invalid since you have not made any case whatsoever for it. The old, “simply stating something doesn’t make it true” principle applies here.
Hello LOL,
You indicated in a previous post that you are along the lines of a truth seeker or Skeptic. Upon taking your at your word, I then needed to establish your consistency as a Skeptic so that the discussion could flourish into intelligent correspondence.
This is not a distraction, but rather an establishment of categorical thinking among both of us so as to establish logical understanding and to avoid language barriers.
Not to mention your story about drive-by denomination shopping. Along with your understanding of “proof” in relation to empiricism as it applies to Evolution. The philosophy of proof is very important to discuss since the conversation will eventually lead us to the PROOF of predestination.
Are you looking at proof similar to Bill Maher, Tabosh, Barker, Hume, Popper? Jung, Black (Black’s Dictionary of Law)?
How can I give you “proof” if I don’t know what quality or kind of proof you desire? And at this point, we must justify that the qualify of your desire proof is based upon truth and is actually proof within itself, simply a pseudo-proof.
How shall we do this?
These are issues of discussion before we can continue. It’s not changing the subject, but it is rather discussing the subject via the proper “timing” of logical sequence. Again, if you were to ask me about the evidence of Calculus, and you have never even heard of multiplication before, then how will you understand the “flow of thought” of my syllogisms? I would have to give you a rattle and say ” goo goo ga ga as a base for our conversation. goo goo ga ga will never give the conceptual understanding in order for intelligence to develop.
I have spoken to several Skeptics in which this has happened. Though I understand your fear.
In regards to your presupposition that empiricism is the means to know, this is a question that all ties in to your questions about predestination and evidence as well.. If you approach this subject empirically, while I approach it via another category of reasoning, our thoughts will by-pass each other like polarized magnets.
David Hume is the most famous modern empiricist (18th century). It has been shown that his empiricism was actually nothing more then Skepticism. And since you claim Skepticism as a possible worldview along the lines of empirical “proof” to refute ANOTHER form of reasoning, then we must first discuss this (point A) before we continue on to the discussion of elements at hand.
Since empiricism (or phantoms – appearances) are simply via experiences of the senses, the only thing we can do at this point is use ostensible definitions. In order to CONNECT the data, you would have to step OUTSIDE of experience/empiricism and use another type of reason thus self-refuting your means to know and to refute.
You could not know about a tree for example. The way it utilizes water and photosynthesis would be impossible. All you could do is point and perhaps jump up and down like an ape.
You cannot taste connection. You cannot smell categories. You cannot hear Cause and Effect. And this is why Empiricists has denied the existence of Cause and Effect. This is a problem since your postings via complete sentences have demonstrated Cause and Effect. So while a consistent empiricist in support of Evolution must deny Cause and Effect, the only way to articulate this is via Cause and Effect.
And this is why the empirical theistic “proofs” for the existence of God are pseudo-proofs and thus pseudo-science (knowledge).
Thus, the very sentence you replay back to me will be a refutation of your givens before you finish your sentence due to universal cause and effect understanding. You must reexamine and justify the method of empirical (experiential) understanding WITHOUT the following:
Abusive “Pastors”
Abusive Churches
Evolution via Empiricism
Zeitgeist (this film is full of tons of Cause and Effect relationships)
etc.
However, since no connection is possible, then syntactical understanding cannot be possible and thus you cannot place data into the proper field in which understanding can transpire.
I wrote my 9 questions to you before I realized that you were a pagan. I simply thought you were a typical Humanistic Christian.
Your argument against Christianity via your “bad” “experiences” needs to be justified as an avenue of understanding towards truth and thus reality.
You can’t just allow experience as a “given” in which propositions are justified and in which propositions are refuted unless that means in itself is justified.
And if you justify that means of experience via experience, then you are in a circle where you will enter the absurdity of goo goo ga ga.
After you tell me your philosophical position in relation to its consistency to the epistemological theory of Skepticism and thus empiricism we can then move on in our discussion to review the philosophy of Freedom in relation to its negative.
I will now put the baby rattle down in anticipation that you will reveal your philosophical stance and “givens.” The problem is that you probably don’t have a clue what they are. So give it some thought and get back to me so we can get to the heart of the matter quicker.
Via consistent empiricism, the color blue, love, hope and purpose are all secondary qualities (Locke) and are not of the same quality of reality as say a toaster.
Thus via your givens, a toaster is of more substance then love, purpose, or meaning. All of your senses can pick up toaster. You could eat a toaster if you wanted to. NONE of your sense can pick up purpose and love.
Thus the love of your son is NOT of any substance via consistent empiricism. Your toaster is more valuable then the love of your son. Since this is absurd, you must either abandon this type of reasoning, or be consistent in tucking your toaster into bed at night.
Since you us empiricism as a first principle, let’s start with that. Provide logical justification for empiricism without using the following:
Universals
Cause and Effect
Categories
Connection
Relationship
a-priori expressions
Logic (you cannot taste logic)
These elements are ALL denied via consistent empiricism.
If upon analysis, you wish to abandon your empiricism and use another form of understanding to articulate your complaint, please do so in order to discuss the method of communication.
It should be noted that the term science (latin-to know) did not have empirical implications attached to it until 1725. Thus science via non-empirical means was around much longer.
The discussion on the specific elements of your question cannot be established until the understanding of method is scrutinized.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Hi LOL,
Uncle Tom came to visit us one time from Texas. Now, Uncle Tom was not cultured in the slightest. He had never heard of art, botany or anything else of such inspiration. He was educated in a Public School system and thus had a very low I.Q.
We got on the subject of classical music. I began to tell Uncle Tom of the beautiful music of Bach, Mozart, Vivaldi, Grieg, among others. I attempted to capture it’s beauty to the best of my ability via words. It just didn’t work.
Uncle Tom needed to EXPERIENCE this classical music for himself to understand how beautiful it is.
My 7 year old niece just started to learn new instrument about a year ago. Her school was about to have their 2nd concert in which they would perform Handel’s Messiah along with Bach’s “Air on a G sting.” Uncle Tom was very excited to experience such superb music.
We went to the school. Uncle Tom was in the first row, leaning forward in anticipation. The director lifted up his arms, and this beautiful music began.
Uncle Tom was very disappointed. He then began to get angry, for began to view me as a big fat liar. This is not at all how I described it. Squeaking and honking, it was more like a concert put together by John Cage. The sound was so bad, Uncle Tom had to take a seat in the back.
Now, Uncle Tom increased in rage after the concert. This was horrible and exactly opposite as I described it. Uncle Tom’s EXPERIENCE had ‘PROVEN’ Classical Music as a worthless piece of garbage.
In fact, Uncle Tom’s EXPERIENCE said that Classical Music was not music at all, it was noise.
Upon Uncle Tom’s anger, I reminded him that we should not look at the imperfect students, but rather we should look at the Master(S) for it’s true representation.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
“Sir Aaron’s exegesis will suffice, for now.”
I did say it was limited…
Hi Sir Aaron~
I think your post was very clear…well done! I also think you are right, LOL does need to do more towards his own education…I warned him it will not be easy going to school, so to speak, at Sir Stephen’s, shall we say =)…
HAPPY NEW YEAR to you and your family!!!
LoL,
This is what Stephen meant by his use of the Historical-grammatical Method:
“The historical-grammatical method, also referred to as grammatico-historical or grammatical-critical, is a component of Biblical hermeneutics that strives to find the intended original meaning in the text. This original intended meaning of the text is drawn out through examination of the passage in light of the grammatical and syntactical aspects, the historical background, the literary genre as well as theological (canonical) considerations. The historical-grammatical method distinguishes between the one original meaning and the significance of the text. The significance of the text includes the ensuing use of the text or application.
The aim of the historical-grammatical method is to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood. The original passage is seen as having only a single meaning or sense. As Milton S. Terry said: “A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture.”
Many practice the historical-grammatical method using a general three-fold approach to the text: 1) observation, 2) interpretation, and 3) application. Each step builds upon the other, and so they follow in order. The first step of observation involves an examination of words, structure, structural relationships and literary forms. After observations are formed, then the second step of interpretation involves asking interpretative questions, formulating answers to those questions, integration and summarization of the passage. After the meaning is derived through interpretation, then the third step of application involves determining both the theoretical and practical significance of the text, and appropriately applying this significance to today’s modern context. There is also an emphasis on personal application that extends into all aspects of the practitioner’s life.”
That’s just a rough sketch of the approach
LOL@allofyou, Since we as inperfect fallen creatures saved by Grace here at BT, are trying our best to appeal to scripture as our only source of info in the matters pertaining to GOD and His choices, can you give ONE passage in scripture that will totally prove us all wrong?
Also, can you give ONE passage where you can prove that God has given man a “free will or choice” to accept or reject Jesus as the basis of salvation?
Mark,
Free will is a choice that is made. Either in choosing to sin or choosing to accept the word of god. The following passage is clear in which God is telling Israel to choose life.
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death,(A) blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Deuteronomy 30:19 ESV
Now why would he tell them to choose life if there is no such thing as free will? If there is no free will then there is no choice and therefor no reason to choose.
“For God so loved the world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16 ESV
Now this verse says whoever believes, not whoever god makes, allows, deems worthy to, or commands to believe. If there is no free will why wouldn’t the bible say any of these things?
Election was used as pertaining to the Jewish nation of Israel meaning that these were his chosen people/ elected people. When they rejected him, the elect was transferred to the gentiles by Christ death and ressurection.
Here are some verses that show that Christ died for the sins of ALL mankind and not the elect of God.
“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” 1 John 2:1-2 ESV
Now if it was only for the elect, don’t you think that these verses would have specified it?
Just read this after pondering on James 4 and thinking about prayer, but think it ties in here this came during the church getting correction you ask but do not recieve, becauseyou ask wrongfully to fullfil you own desires… I read this quote God wants us to Love what He Loves.
Just want to share that with you all,
I saw that Love when we were visiting all of you in soCal, thank you for the blessings,
You all are baby kissers and warriors.
Hello Stephen,
While I understand that you are simply parroting Morey’s lingo here (“Historical Grammatical Method”) which could be argued is via the method of the Reformers, this is somewhat ambiguous in the 21st century.
One must define what they mean by “Historical.” According to MOST of the modern leading Biblical Greek Grammarians, the traditional historical (dialectic) is being replaced by the modern concept behind syntactic.
In fact, very few people view Greek as dialectic anymore (which I believe Morey does). Most are laughed at among Protestant circles who do so (DTS, WTS, Harvard, Oxford, etc).
One may argue that this is not a means of hermeneutics, but it is. We must not only discuss method between dialectic and syntactic, we must also discuss the position one would take between form or function which is closely associated with dialectic (historical) or syntactic.
I’ll give you a clue which should bring this all home. The syntactical means is based upon empirical understanding of the morpho-syntactic categories of affected meaning vs. unaffected meaning (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. xiii).
“[the] morpho-syntactic element…are supposed to be based on a decent sampling of the data and with a proper linguistic grid to run it through.”
Much, much more could be said, but it appears you have the proper tools at your disposal to follow this modern flow of thought.
While the dialectic old tradition of historical took the positions of function, the modern Grammarians (e.g. Wallace, Mounce) are taking the positions of form. A.T. Robertson was the last “succession” of the old dialectic in which Wallace argues those after him were bias via denominational favortism.
Dana and Mantey are examples in which they follow Robertson because of their admiration. So in this case we would say that A.T. Robertson is the most recent via succession. Before I even knew of this controversy I used Dana and Mantey’s grammar in college while going through Greek. Robertson’s was a reference of rare syntactical structures such as the Dative of agent (“en”).
I believe Morey has a USB Greek N.T. signed and inscribed by Mantey. While it is post hoc to assume Morey’s positions similar to Mantey and his teacher Robertson, the question remains as to Morey’s position which makes me wonder.
Though I don’t think he has a position since his Greek is somewhat “rusty” I would guess. Justin Alford (excuse the last name, I don’t remember his last name) is his “go to guy” in regards to the text via grammatical approach. Discussing this with Justin over a decade ago. I would assume that Justin is via A.T. Robertson’s style (old dialectic/function system).
I relayed my personal position briefly on another post. And while you are talking to a person that is a pagan and thus has no ability to understand the spiritual (II Corinthians 2:14; 16) , it would still be beneficial for you to think through what you are saying instead of parroting via phonetic memory.
Just helping you think through these things Stephen,
You said that you can’t just assert without justification which is exactly what I’ve said in the past (very good). Instead of a historical analysis of this “literal sense,” the game becomes more complicated via new research and technology at our disposal and you need to think and not just assert the historical grammatical method of the literal sense.
I believe D.A. Carson shares Wallace’s understanding via his work on Greek accents which can change the meaning and is counted as a kind of subtle morphology.
So what position are you taking when you say “Historical Grammatical and what is the justification of that position thereof. And is Morey of the same mentality as Mantey and thus his attachment of sentimentalism towards that signature?
The issue at hand is dialectic vs. syntactic; form vs. function.
In today’s world, you can’t just say “Historical Grammatical Method,” you have to qualify and define what you are talking about.
This may be too difficult of a subject to discuss here so I’ll give you a way out. However, these questions are important to mediate upon since it is the very starting points of these questions that will effect the conclusions of translation.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
LOL,
Do the verses that you cited prove that our “SALVATION” is “BASED” on man’s “free will” choice?
I don’t deny that we make choices, I mean, that is what humans do, we make choices. We make choices based on our desires.
As humans we: think,make choices,and have emotions.
Maybe what’s going on here is: Biblical Anthropology vs. Humanistic Anthropology.
LOL,
I find it most interesting that you are engaging in a debate about free will, when you claim, or at least have claimed here, that Biblical Christianity is false and that we Christians are essentially wasting our time. If you don’t believe in Christ, what is it to you whether we believe in absolute free will or in election?
The doctrine is irrelvant to you, since don’t believe in Christ regardless of which is true. Are you now feeling differently about your need to profess faith in Christ?
Let me ask you a question? Can you choose to breathe underwater? Theoretically you could, after all you have the ability to choose to do so. But you never would, because you can’t breathe underwater without some divine intervention. So, if somehow you suddently gained the ability to breathe underwater, then you’d have “free will” to choose to breathe air or breathe underwater. Until then, you really don’t have free will because your ability to choose is subjected to your nature.
LOL, are you a non believer using scripture, that you don’t believe in, to prove that your interpretation of scripture is correct?
What’s going on? I admit I sort of just”jumped” in on this but, what’s up?
Sir Aaron,
You said it. It is most interesting and that is why I have continued.
You wrote,
“Let me ask you a question? Can you choose to breathe underwater? Theoretically you could, after all you have the ability to choose to do so. But you never would, because you can’t breathe underwater without some divine intervention. So, if somehow you suddently gained the ability to breathe underwater, then you’d have “free will” to choose to breathe air or breathe underwater. Until then, you really don’t have free will because your ability to choose is subjected to your nature.”
Yes, I can choose to breath underwater. I would use an invention that scientists have come up with called an air tank. And I would use free will to choose to use one. Unless you think that an air tank is divine intervension.
Thank you for that laugh though. I continue because I have been asked mulitiple questions from numerous posters and I have tried to answer as many as I could in the time that I have. So my answers begot more questions and so on and so forth. Good couple of questions….
Mark,
You are the one that asked for scripture. I simply answered your questions using the basis on what you wanted me to use.
In order to understand what you guys believe I do have to refer back to my christian experiences and what I was taught during that time. So that involves the only book (or collection of books- for Stephen) that is used when teaching chrstians religion. I’m merely trying to relate what you guys have interpreted from the scriptures.
What kind of debate would there be if I used atheism to answer all the questions that refer to scripture?
The real question is how much longer this can go on? I figured a BT moderator would have come by to cut my throat. This has to be deemed destructive for the search of biblical truth. Thank you though BT moderators, whoever you are for allowing my inquesition and the inquesition of me by others.
Hi Sir Aaron,
Even though you appear not to like me very much, you have hit the nail right on the head.
Those conversing with LOL are discussing variables in the middle of nowhere with no attachment. It’s like that show, “Man vs. Wild,” where one is dropped off in the middle of nowhere via helicopter, except some on here have no survival skills.
LOL is NOT a Truth-Seeker. A true “Truth-Seeker” would want the justification that leads up to the point of affirmation or negation. ALL pagans simply are into the game of B.S. so as to justify the sin of their conscience.
It is most likely that LOL “abandoned Christianity” due to a secret sin in his life. Perhaps he’s a homosexual, or a promiscuous “John.” Perhaps he’s into the hard “Green Bud” vs. the “Red Bud.”
It appears that LOL was NEVER “born again,” (I John 2:19), but rather “porn again.” Who knows.
But I agree with Morey when he says that the heresy of ungodly lifestyle usually goes before doctrinal heresy.
And even in empirical “logic”, it is said that the burden of proof at times shifts, and since LOL is wanting dialogue, then the B.P. is on him first so that we can first establish the possibility of communication and the desired evidence of established propositions.
If I drew him a pink painting of a white uni-corn, would that be the kind of evidence for predestination/Creationism? Or would dirt be? etc.
He is continually refuting himself upon every sentence he writes since he assumes a-priori universal linguistic recognition, and that he writes in a Cause and Effect relationship.
We cannot give him evidence unless we first know of the kind of evidence he desires. Is consistency important?-or can we be inconsistent?
If we can be inconsistent like LOL, then I could say the following and it would be acceptable.
“Predestination is true because Walt Disney was a homosexual when he ate bacon with his pigs.”
Now this is extreme, but this type of absurdity we find with LOL, along with other punks and pagans.. He simply wants to bull-shit.
It’s almost like he read the “Atheist’s Debater’s Handbook.” (lol). This is not the how one should study logic and rhetoric.
Since I and Sir Aaron are upon deaf ears due the goal of LOL attempting to discreet bull-shit upon the B.T. forums, I wash my hands of such “non-sense” and would encourage Sir Aaron to do otherwise.
Your Brother in Christ,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
I just saw some of the posts here and wanted to make a little clarification, if I may, just in regard to women in leadership.
Women are not to be leaders in marriage or in a church, not because of their emotions (there are many men who are quite emotional as well),but as Scripture says, because Eve was DECEIVED. It had nothing to do with emotions, but her deception by the Serpent, the Devil, and stepping outside of her protection of her marriage and rebellion against God.
1Tim. 2: 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission…. 1Tim2: 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
That’s all. Thanks!
LOL,
Couple of quick notes and observations, and a critique.
1. You are confusing man’s capacity to make choices with the philosophic theory that claims man has the freedom of contrary choice.
2. You have failed to operate the term “free will” in accord with its designated meaning, and therefore there is no contradiction with the verses you’ve cited and the Calvinist position. The way you’ve used the term denotes general “choice making” that occurs on a day-to-day basis.
3. Basically, your argument is:
a. Free will is a choice that is made.
b. Calvinism denies free will.
c. The Bible, in certain passages such as Deuteronomy 30:19 and John 3:16, point to man’s ability to choose.
d. Therefore Calvinism is wrong.
Since your major premise (a) is a fundamental error equating “free will” with “choice making,” and since you have equivocated the term “free will” in “a” & “b,” your argument does not establish your conclusion (d) on the basis that your argument is logically invalid.
Also, based on the definition of your major premise (a), your minor premise (b) is a “straw man.” This argument is fatally flawed, but I will not offer any more light on the fallacies therein (e.g. “c” is loaded). Sometimes one gun shot wound can kill a horse, and it would be pointless to continue whipping it once it’s dead. I am trying to keep this as basic as can be. If there is something here that you do not understand, please mention it and if I deem it fruitful I will address it.
Your option now is to decide which theory of free will you will continue with, or abandon it altogether. Either way, you can no longer proceed according to the way in which you have in the past.
You have just been formally refuted (albeit very basic).
Hi Denise,
I agree with you that women are not to be leaders in Church or the home (unlike the opinion of lunatics such as Joyce Meyer and other Charismatic “Nuts”).
The issue of emotion was not the capture of the position as a whole. However, it can be said that ONE of the reasons why women are not to be in leadership is that they are generally prone to emotional decisions instead of logical decisions. They are designed as such.
Women are generally designed as nurturers. Now, I am not setting up a false dichotomy between nurture and logic, what I am saying is that those of intense nurturing tendancies USUALLY lean towards the emotional MORE (a lot more) then their male counter-parts. Please understand my point.
An example of this can be seen in the action of Eve. She sinned by biting that fruit not because she was logical, but because her emotional (non-logical) “wiring” kicked in. More could be said on this since it opens up an entire discussion of Original Sin and the actions of Eve.
Adam bit the fruit KNOWING that it was wrong (logically speaking) and that he was going to get in trouble. I believe the text supports via inference the case that Adam bit the fruit out of his love for Eve and NOT the seduction of the snake.
The Snake used that emotional weakness of the woman. So even via the sin of Adam, it was logical (though still a sin) while Eve’s was emotional.
This is not to put down women or even to elevate men. This is not a chauvinistic mentality, since men and women are equal via nature, however NOT equal via economy.
So, women are not leaders, yes, BECAUSE of God’s design and decree, but one of the reasons for that is due to His design of women being emotional nurturers (with qualifications), and not logical objective thinkers.
Now, this is not to say that ALL women are illogical. Many misunderstandings will probably transpire after this post. I agree with Morey that some women are more logical the men (due to the San-Francisco syndrome of intellectual and physical Eunuchs of today). But, for the most part, women are not designed this way.
So thus, emotion is “A” reason as to why women are not leaders. Though this is not the reason as a whole.
The Christian view of emotions is a neglected subject among scholars. Some Christians have even implied a kind of infallibility of the emotions. Since us Calvinists fight so often against emotions which used by the pagans, it is sometimes undercut as to its proper place.
I find my wife to be above the norm (I’m trying not to be bias) in terms of logic. I find her to be one of the most logical women I know. Another example of a logic women would be Ann Coulter.
Not very many texts demonstrate the proper place of emotions in the Christian Worldview. While I have done a study on this, a large book or two could be written on the subject.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Denise, I think Cauvin, in his long winded post, is trying to say that the reason why Eve was deceived is because women are hard wired by God to process problems using more emotional input than men.
Of course, this is obviously a conclusion Cauvin makes since the Bible doesn’t actually say this (not that I necessarily disagree with his conclusion, but it is an opinion/conclusion based on reading between the lines as it were).
Hello Denise,
It is an inference from the given text(s). Sir Aaron had responded emotionally sometimes so I felt lead to call him Madam Aaron, but I thought I’d show a little respect and refrain. : )
Since women are much more emotionally minded, one’s Christian maturity among the female sex, would be the distinction between reason and emotion.
A mature woman knows how to put her emotions to the side while conducting sound judgment knowing that her “wired weakness” will hamper her intelligence.
Debra, for example was an interesting prophetess. By knowing that her emotions COULD get in the way, she depended on the wisdom of God for His logic (vs. her emotions) and thus conducted her Biblical business appropriately. Her actions for the most part, were admirable in this instance..
There have been some posters on here (women – and even men : ) ) who show emotional “reasoning.” This is wrong and is the consequent of the sin of Eve.
With all due respect, the one time I saw Cindy at an apologetic type conference she came across as a very emotional person (via thinking). In terms of Reformed MaMa, It’s hard to discern this over a post since I can’t ask questions that may eliminate misunderstanding. But it is fair to say that she has also stated her reasoning within the realm of emotion.
This is not a “put-down,” just an analysis of the event.
Thus, ONE reason as to why women are not elders or leaders of the church has to do with their sinful wiring (ina- as the result of sin) of emotional tendencies. Since this is a weakness, it disqualifies ALL women from leaders over the authority of a man which possess sound judgment and logic (or is suppose via his wiring).
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Sorry for the typos, I was doing 3 things at the same time while witting the above.
I might add that I have seen Reformed MaMa relay her thinking in a logical format as well. However, when backed in a corner, the emotions tend to fly out.
I’m still waiting for my present from Reformed Mama. I’ve always wanted a Pony.
Jean Cauvin
LOL~
Yesterday you wrote:
“The real question is how much longer this can go on? I figured a BT moderator would have come by to cut my throat. This has to be deemed destructive for the search of biblical truth. Thank you though BT moderators, whoever you are for allowing my inquesition and the inquesition of me by others.”
There will be no slitting of throats today, LOL! However, I think we have probably come to a stopping point with you for the time being. You have asked many questions and they have been answered. You show no desire to bow the knee to our Lord or His word and that is the only way to fully understand our ministry here and indeed our worldview.
As stated in my post, in the words of Dabney:
“To press it (Predestination) prominently on anxious inquirers, or on those already confused by cavils of heretics or Satanic suggestions, or to urge it upon one inclined to skepticism, or one devoid of sufficient Christian knowledge, experience and humility, is unsuitable and imprudent.”
As long as you remain outside of union with Messiah, you are doing the Devil’s will:
“Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth and they will come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap where they are held captive to do his will.” 2 Timothy 2:25-26
LOL, you are still welcome and we continue our prayers for you. This comment is just some communication to let you know where we stand at this time.
May God save you…
Jean C,
I find much of your seemingly unending commentary incredibly incompatible with a post about grace. Doesn’t Paul advise in 1 Tim 5 to “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him as if he were your father. Treat younger men like brothers, older women like mothers, and younger women like sisters, with absolute purity.”
Are your comments then how you treat your father, mother, brothers and sisters?
Also, I don’t believe I’ve seen any evidence that you’ve submitted to the following scriptural instruction in your comments either, Hmmm… (This is not a “put-down,” just an analysis).
2Tim Flee from youthful passions. Instead, pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace together with those who call on the Lord with a pure heart. Do not have anything to do with foolish and stupid discussions, because you know they breed arguments. A slave of the Lord must not argue. Instead, he must be kind to everyone, teachable, willing to suffer wrong, and gentle in refuting his opponents. After all, maybe God will allow them to repent and to come to a full knowledge of the truth, so that they might escape from the devil’s snare, even though they’ve been held captive by him to do his will.
Grace and Peace, Jean, GRACE and PEACE, learn it, live it, love it!
To Jean~
1.JEAN CAUVIN WROTE: “I’ve only seen Cindy a long time ago at a book table during a apologetic type “conference.” She was odd. I have no idea why you differentiated her name with yours.”
You are the one who alluded to the fact that I might be Cindy. It perplexed you enough that you wrote about it on another blog formerly known as Blooming in Bullock. The post is no longer there. My gift to you was a bit of a White Elephant…it was to let you know that I am not Cindy! Sorry no pony…
2. JEAN CAUVIN WROTE: “There is no need to discuss the logical fallacy of Reformed MaMa at this point since her points are invalid. But she seems very nice and I am looking forward to her present.”
My points are invalid according to what standard, yours? The message of this testimonial post is GRACE. IMO, you do not display this godly fruit. You do realize arrogance is NOT one of the fruits of the Spirit, yes?
3.JEAN CAUVIN WROTE: “If my rhetoric is causing other Christians on here to stumble, I will tone it down for the weaker in the Faith. Some people are simply not able to handle Hard-Core bluntness, and that is fine.”
Dr. Morey is my pastor; I am quite used to bluntness. Again, it is the ungodly character traits you often display that we object to. You said you would “tone it down” but did not keep your word. For example:
JEAN CAUVIN COMMENTS TO LOL:
“It is most likely that LOL “abandoned Christianity” due to a secret sin in his life. Perhaps he’s a homosexual, or a promiscuous “John.” Perhaps he’s into the hard “Green Bud” vs. the “Red Bud.””
While your point is partially correct that LOL does not seem to be progressing towards saving faith, there was no warrant to make the above crude leap. Very inappropriate.
4. JEAN CAUVIN WROTE: “I might add that I have seen Reformed MaMa relay her thinking in a logical format as well. However, when backed in a corner, the emotions tend to fly out.”
What corners have I been backed into? I must have missed that. I’m not quite sure what is bothering you about the way I post. I offer exhortation, encouragement, Scripture…I even spell pretty well. Do I do so with emotion? Sure. I’m not afraid of that. Is that too emotional?
I do my best to be a good student of logic. God is certainly the creator of logic and Jesus, Paul, etc certainly modeled it when they walked this earth. They also modeled grace but you display very little of that.
Darrinb once told me (paraphrasing): that you can’t force Reformed thinking down others throats after all that is not how it was taught to you. So true. Many, many people are responsible for bringing me to Reformed faith, by God’s grace, and not one of them lost their patience. If we can do that for LOL or others on BT I think that will be pleasing to God.
May God conform you into His likeness…
Certainly self-control is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. However, that does not mean we are monotone zombies either. I see God display anger, wrath, love, affection, joy, and grief throughout Scripture. It is always with wisdom and right motive, however.
A biting tongue also displays emotions. There is a difference between being bold with Truth and being a snot. LOL. I think you know what I mean.
I’ve found that those who fancy themselves smarter than most (see Rom. 12:3) are usually the worst ones at displaying grace and patience for the rest of us simple-minded bumbling idiots.
Its good for all of us to bear in mind the following verses:
Gal 5:26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
1Co 11:16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
Psa 138:6 For though the LORD is high, he regards the lowly, but the haughty he knows from afar.
Col. 4: 6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
ReformedMama, re: your last statement about shoving reformed theology down the throats of others, here’s my two cents.
If a person has the Spirit of Truth indwelling them, we can proclaim biblical truth to them, and at some point they will embrace it because it is Scripture and He cannot deny Himself (the Spirit will lead us into all truth John 16:13)). It seems to me that so often people rely on themeselves to convince others instead of the Spirit of God. We certainly can be tenatious in standing firm on Scripture, but many folks leave out the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit as well as the power of the Scripture.
Sir Aaron,
You said “I find it most interesting that you are engaging in a debate about free will, when you claim, or at least have claimed here, that Biblical Christianity is false and that we Christians are essentially wasting our time. If you don’t believe in Christ, what is it to you whether we believe in absolute free will or in election?”
When and where did I ever say that Biblical Christianity is FALSE, or that Christians are wating your time? The only thing I ever said was that after I weighed the evidence that I had found that evolution is more probable than a talking snake, a man living in a giant fish for 3 days, or ressurection.
Stephen,
Again, I never said that Calvinists are wrong. Or that what they believe is wrong. I was simply arguing the “other denominations’ ” side. In contrary I have found that Calvanism is a very unique and intelligent study of the bible. If I were to come back to religion I would consider Calvanism at the top of the list as far as which denomination I would choose.
On the other hand, the arrogance displayed by Jean C would be the biggest reason for me to toss aside any decision as I find him out of the box so to speak. He is above everyone else here and his posting reek of superiority. I do hope he was kidding when he said something about being a pastor. That would be quite frightening to have to listen to his superior intelligence and dimeaning of others on a weekly basis.
Try not to put words in my mouth and I will try not to do the same thing. I’m currently researching loads of points brought up in multiple posts and will try to address them when I feel like I know more. Because some of my earlier points have been refuted, which I will agree some have, I want to make sure I have more information next time.
Thank you for your patience.
LOL SAID: When and where did I ever say that Biblical Christianity is FALSE, or that Christians are wating your time?
SIR AARON REPLIES: You must think I’m forgetful or else stupid. One does not need to go beyond your screenname in order to see the contempt you show for the Christians here. Be it as it may, you did say the following on December 5th in the Popoff thread:
“You guys kill me. All this guy is doing is what the same people who “created” christianity did and that is profit of the naive and uninformed people of the world. It is all about control and believe it or not you have all been duped and are all being controlled by this belief that God existed and lived on earth through his son Jesus Christ. Other than the bible there is absolutely no book or writings anywhere that proves the existence of a man named Jesus Christ who was a savior. However, you give your 10% and pray and 1 of 3 things happens every time. Either you are told to wait or yes or no. Funny thing is that if you prayed to anything else, you would get the same results. Wake up and smell the bullshit! Or don’t, and continue to live your disillusioned life that is being controlled by those who do know better.”
Do you still wish to deny that you declared Biblical Christianity to be false or do you now wish to change your plea to “guilty as charged?”
Cauvin: It is an inference from the given text(s). Sir Aaron had responded emotionally sometimes so I felt lead to call him Madam Aaron, but I thought I’d show a little respect and refrain. : )
I had a quip prepared, but our good Lord did say to turn the other cheek.
Hello,
It should be noted that there is a time and a place to be hard-core, while there are other times to be soft-core.
In regards to an e-mail type blog, it is difficult to discern a person’s means of articulation, so confusion can transpire.
In the words of Morey; “Sometimes boldness is confused with arrogance.”
If we want a New Reformation, we must think correctly and articulate that thinking correctly. Most Christians are so clueless about the thinking, and thus the articulation is via the tone of the San Francisco treat.
So while we are to rebuke and older man gently (within the Church) there are times where we need to rebuke ANYBODY hard-core.
This can be seen via inference in the gospels, Galatians 2, Titus 1:9, Jude 3.
I’ve done nothing wrong in my articulation. In fact, I would be singing patty-cakes compared to Luther. If Luther was on this blog I’m sure he would have been permenatly removed by now.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean Cauvin,
You are not “hard-core” in the biblical sense. Biblically speaking you are what is called a “hardened heart.” In no place in the Christian Worldview is this ever portrayed as virtuous.
In the words of Morey: “Sometimes hard-core is confused with a hard-heart!”
Since you’re incapable at this time of portraying Christian virtue in your speech toward other believers, then perhaps it’s time for you to find another sandbox to openly sin in and get behind us, Satan…
Hi Stephen,
If you ask me to go away, I will leave. A Reformation will never occur as outlined by B.T. if one continues to behave as “wimps for Christ.”
I believe the Pope had similar words for Martin Luther (as you have for me). Luther responded by drawing a harp in the Pope’s ass.
I have my drawing board out and I’m ready. Though instead of a harp, perhaps a portrait of San-Francisco.
“He who plays the piper, calls the tunes.”
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean,
I would like to say that there is nothing “respectful” in your comments. In your comment “Luther responded by drawing a harp in the Pope’s ass.” I hope that you were referring to the Pope’s donkey. If you were not I would prefer that you leave the profanity out of a Christian blog. I would have to wonder what kind of witness this is to others. If you were referring to a donkey then I take back the comment on profanity, but the witness comment stands as you do not appear to love other believers on this site (1 John 4:20).
Jean Cauvin,
One of the wimpiest acts a professing Christian can do is fly the white flag in spiritual battle. When one gives in so easy to the desires of the flesh like you do, from the Christian perspective we view it as “wimpy.” Flat out, you’re a wimp. That is why you are exhorted by tough Christians firm in the faith to reform your behavior to Scripture. But since the appeals go ignored, and since your losing battle with sin escalates, we can confidently judge you as one with a hardened heart.
Blessed is the one who fears the Lord always,
but whoever hardens his heart will fall into calamity. (Prov. 28:14)
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. As it is said,
“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” (Heb. 3:12-15)
There is no possible case to be made from the Bible in favor of the continual production and instigation of strife among believers in a Christian community. The revelation given by God expressly forbids it. Yet it is what is most dominant in most of what you write here. The fact that I even have to explain this to you is proof enough.
So you can hide all you want behind an alias and a gross misunderstanding of Morey, Luther, et al., but you can’t hide from the fiery eyes of the Lord Jesus Christ. before Him you stand naked and exposed. He has spoken in His word, you have been admonished in His name, you have declined to repent and have chosen to remain in your sin. May God be merciful in dealing with you.
Evil men do not understand justice,
but those who seek the Lord understand it completely. (Prov. 28:5)
We all must fight, and fight with the toughness that only comes from God, when tempted by the world, the flesh, and the devil. The easy way out is to just give in and be taken over, and as Warren Wiersbe puts it – grant Satan a beach head. There is a difference between one who is overcome in battle and one who surrenders without a fight. The former is honorable and the latter is a disgrace. The former is brave and the latter is a coward.
So when faced with the temptation to slander and ridicule fellow believers, remember the following few passages from Scripture that speak of how one is to treat the other. There are literally dozens more that I could have posted, but they are so clear that they all sound alike and repeat each other.
These are the things that you shall do: Speak the truth to one another; render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace; do not devise evil in your hearts against one another, and love no false oath, for all these things I hate, declares the Lord.
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you, and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.
Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another,
We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.
Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;
For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
Consider these things, brothers and sisters, and let us unite our hearts around the love of the Messiah so that our efforts in reforming be to his glory. Let us purge the evil from among us lest the whole lump become infected!
Hello,
I’m feeling the love. All of a sudden a “Mob” of people jump on me like a “White Fence” gangster riot.
Instead of shooting adhominems with the Rifle of Grudge, while don’t we get back to the issues at hand. Here are some examples:
Theology
Philosophy
Politics
Science (knowledge)
Psychology (Modern vs. Biblical Psychology)
Logic and Biblical Thinking
Dr. Morey’s cooking, (YUCK VS. YUM!)
etc, etc, etc.
I don’t mind people thinking I have a hard heart or that I’m a bad guy. It’s totally fine and part of the game.
But now that it’s over, let’s get back to the topics of discussion. If some on here would like to beat on me a little more, I welcome it with open arms.
Dr. Walter Martin was discussing polygamy one time to a group of LDS supporters. Instead of dealing with polygamy, the LDS supporters told him that he has no business talking about marriage and/or polygamy since he’s been married 3 times.
Dr. Walter Martin responded by telling them to look at his arguments and not at him.
I expect the mature to do the same after they get the beating out of their system.
Either way, no hard feelings and I appreciate that I haven’t been kicked off this forum as of yet. But if the time comes where you decide to, so be it.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
LOL@
You could ask another hundred questions after all these and not be convinced.
Since our focus is upon Jesus Christ, all that is said and proclaimed about Him should be true; but not everyone that quotes Gods word knows God. To my understanding this is what you had done in the past? I dont understand why you abandoned your faith, but my first guess is you had never experienced what is like to be regenerate. You know youre on a calvinist website so you know some of the tenents of our faith because we have highlighted them above other things that can be known in scripture. But trying to digest predestination while youre in this mode youre in will probably only distract you from what might be most important to you. By the way, dont let Jean C get your hackles up its not the first time blunders have been made and it wont be the last, I know this because I am still around to make them.
Im asking you to take one look at something really wonderful. You know the story in John 3 and being born again? Well, it might very well be the condition you are in. Acknowledging Jesus, Christianity, the bible, even miracles and apostles will get you as far as Nicodemus, but it wont get you open eyes to see the kingdom of God. Youve got to be born of God for that. What Im saying is that this war with God your in displays the missing element of God’s regenerative power. No matter what you end up believing about yourself, God will have a say in what you will eventually become.
To me, endless questions with debate after debate signals that the person is coming to the end of themselves and is grasping for anything that will preserve the sinful self-life and smooth the conscience too. But youve been to exposed to biblical truth, youve been in proximity to the real thing and its much harder to dispose of all youve seen and heard all these years than you thought.
There is a real call, a genuine call of God sent straight to you, Its a call to repent and believe the gospel. You need not bother with trying to dodge election bullets or predestination arrows, God is not calling you to himself as someone who is convinced of his election or of Christ’s determinate will to purchase for himself a people; God is calling you to Himself as a sinner in need of saving. Its a genuine, right now command from God, there is no need to over anaylize the summons, there is no need to debate the command to repent.
Youve got a mind that acknowledges certain truths and my prayer is that this most important one, that you must be born of God will shine within your soul by the grace of God. It is by God, for God and to God that such a thing would happen to you.
You do not need concern yourself with ordo salutis or with alot of other theological ramifications youve packed away, I believe your most pressing understanding is “Will God save me and erase the objections I have with the certainties that God can give”? The answer to that, is not found in beating some theological objection you have, but going straight to the source of this question-God Himself.
God concerns Himself with the saving of sinners, it is in fact about the sinner that he says “his thoughts toward us cannot be numbered”. God has thought long and hard about you and answers are available.
Can you unpack faith toward God? It is certain that it can remain buried under the myriads of arguments you have, but genuine faith will eventually bring forth a genuine salvation. What good seed God plants, God receives again as a good tree.
John
Jean C quotes..Dr. Walter Martin responded by telling them to look at his arguments and not at him.
Jean: Whether Dr. Martin said that or not, I dont know, but I do know that Jesus put a priority on our lives imitating His own, washing one anothers feet for no other reason than we are available to do it depicts the same mind that was in Christ.
Its takes no spiritual connection at all to detect dirty feet on others, even Satan can do that. But it takes something else to wash anothers feet when you and they know you are superior to them. But when we are all ’servants of Christ’ its ok for others to notice dirt on our feet and when they get down to cleaning it off we dont need to be like peter and say ‘never’. Peter said it because of recognizing the greatness of Christ, but we say it because we only see the commonness of others.
John
Dang Stephen, you either think and type really fast, or you have a lot of free time on your hands or wrist (watch) to address all of this stuff on this blog, etc. Whatever the case, i skimmed over this thread but actually read your last 2 comments and you get 2 big thumbs up. That was completely refreshing to hear. You should make sure you save all your exchanges with people so that you can later edit through it and maybe compile a book, or books. That way, it’d be more worth your while to engage at length, things and issues you may perhaps think are not going to accomplish much. Anyway, peace and grace, and LOVE. Ah, you gotta love, love. Thanks….
Hi Tom,
I do think and type fast. But lots of free time is definitely not a luxury I enjoy at the present (to say the least!).
I’m glad that you have been refreshed by my comments on the love of the brethren. It is essential. The lack of love is a koinonia killer. That is why whenever a selfish person that considers her/himself more valuable than others and projects division among God’s people emerges among us, we admonish and rebuke the wicked behavior and call the offender to repentance. If after a few admonitions there is no repentance but continual perpetuation of wickedness, it becomes necessary to purge the wicked from among God’s people, mark them out as them that cause divisions, and have nothing to do with them.
The purity among God’s people must be defended and protected lest we grant Satan complimentary real estate to kick it in our midst.
But praise God that you have seen the importance of this truth! And may God grant you, wherever you attend church (that is, if you do), a love that continues to abound with knowledge. I now plagiarize the Apostle Paul:
“And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Phil. 1:9-11)”
And here I plagiarized one of my mentors, Don Carson, from whom I learned many great truths of God…