|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 8:22:42 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 1619
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
Well , you had best understand Jesus' words then .
Yeah....
...FG says the same about the soils. 
No, I say the same thing about Jesus' words about the soils.
Its a ..............parable.
Interpret it in a literal way to suit your theology if you want.
But many scholars and doctrines are against you.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 8:28:48 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6425
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Conquered
quote:
No, it's wrong and I advocate that Adam was created with a free will, as you note, and he never lost it after the fall.
Well, the Scriptures disagree. They say that “Everyone who sins is a slave to sin.” Slaves are not free to choose for themselves, but can only choose in so far as their Master orders them. Unbelievers are slaves to their father the devil.
I think you are mixing Scriptures to try to support your point. Your point doesn't seem to be relevant to my point about Adam retaining his free will after the fall. Your point is true for both believer and unbeliever, for when you or I sin, we are slaves to it. iow, we obey it. So your point is not relevant to my point. How can you show that Adam lost his ability to freely choose after the fall?
quote:
quote:
Why do you think your faith is "coupled" (whatever that means) with the cross of Christ? The Bible tells us plainly that God gives eternal life to those who believe. It's not the other way around, as your theology would have it.
I don’t believe this, you do.
Why do you say this. Just read my quote above. I'm asking you why you seem to think faith is "coupled". Does that sound as though I think it is? I think you are confused.
quote:
My theology requires faith and that salvation is by faith alone from God alone. But you believe that choice must be coupled with the cross in order to make it powerful enough for you to be saved.
Yes, you demonstrate your confusion over what you think I believe. My theology is that salvation is by grace through faith aloane from God alone. It is your confusion to think that I think that choice must be coupled with the cross to make it powerful enough for salvation. I have said repeatedly that man's freely chosen faith does not save nor "powers" our salvation. That is merely your misunderstanding and confusion getting in the way.
God requires man to believe and He saves man. Since He is omniscient, He isn't "waiting around to see what man does", as some of the reformed keep repeating of the free will viewpoint, which is totally wrong.
quote:
You think that you have a crucial power within you in order to save yourself even if you think it is you doing the work .0001% of the time and Jesus is doing the other 99.9999%. You say this because you insist that the .0001% within you must come in your choice first before God can save you.
Where do you come up with this nonsense? Where do I mention any percentage? I don't, so please quit making up stuff that I don't support and then tell me what I think. Since I believe that God created man with the ability to believe and reject anything, why do you think that means I think believing is some "crucial power"?
quote:
That’s pretty dishonest of you Free to quote me out of context like that. Why didn’t you engage what I wrote?
Just look a bit farther and you will see that I did. Are you unable to take an occasional "gotcha"?
quote:
quote:
Where do you read that only those whom God has "appointed to hear"? That is not taught in the Bible.
48When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. – Acts 13:47-48
 Here we go again. The word for "appointed" is tasso, with a military root which is rendered "to assign, dispose to a certain position, set, addict (KJV) or devoted (NASB)" for 1 Cor 15:16. Note that God is not mentioned in Acts 13:48. Also note that Luke compared the unbelieving Jews, whom Paul charged them as judging themselves unworthy of eternal life, with the Gentiles who in the context had begged Paul to return to speak again (v.43,44). Tasso is passive voice, meaning the action is done to the subject, but there are many scholars who note that many times the ancients used passive voices in place of middle voices. Mark 1:6 is a perfect example. It speaks of John the baptizer "was dressed in camel hair" and is in the passive voice. Would you interpret that as his mommy came out in the desert each morning and dressed her little boy? Of course not. Do you think he had a butler like Prince Charles who dressed him? Of course not. So, it is clear from Mark 1:6 that Mark used a passive voice as a middle voice, which indicates the subject performs the action on himself.
So, the Gentiles performed the action of "appointment" on themselves. iow, they "lined up or set themselves" for eternal life.
The text does not support or prove your theory.
quote:
quote:
Actually, just the opposite could be charged; that your view of the "elect" gives you something to boast about: "look at me, God chose me", etc.
Not at all, because the elect know that there is nothing good in them.
You forget that there are many elect who also believe the Bible teaches free will, and even these elect know that there is nothing good in them.
quote:
They agree with Paul.
I certainly agree with Paul when he included the entire human race in who can be justified freely through faith in Christ's blood, per Rom 3:23-25. Do you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 8:32:32 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6425
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
Well , you had best understand Jesus' words then .
Yeah....
...FG says the same about the soils.
No, I say the same thing about Jesus' words about the soils.
Its a ..............parable.
Does that discount what Jesus plainly said? Why?
quote:
Interpret it in a literal way to suit your theology if you want.
That's what hermeneutics are about. Letting the text tell you what it means, not you telling the text what the text "meant to say". When Jesus said they believed, He didn't say they "didn't believe savingly".
quote:
But many scholars and doctrines are against you.
What is your point here? Are we taking an opinion poll or survey and deciding democratically what is true? I don't think so.
As far as what you say, you could say that about Jesus as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 9:02:59 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 1619
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
Manna -
If heaven rejoices over one repentant sinner,
why wouldn't God rejoice, too?
If God rejoices, then why?
If God does not rejoice, then why not?
Good question, rw! I voiced the same thing a while back. If the calvinistic view of election is true, why do angels rejoice over 1 sinner who repents, since it would all have been "predetermined" in eternity past. None of the reformed could give a reasonable answer. I'll be curious what Manna says.
Rejoicing angels in calvinism doesn't make any sense.
The only answer I have heard is the angels do not know who is elect.
The verse says "there will be more joy in heaven".
Election must make God simply satisfied (even satisified?) one of his
elect creatures has done what it was predestined to do.
???
If election were true, God could be no more joyful when one of
his elect is saved than He could when the sun rises again.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 9:03:56 PM
|
|
|
Destiny7777
Posts: 23
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Are you saying that "the called" are those whose eyes and ears God has opened?
Not in any "absolute" sense, but generally. Since it cannot be argued that God always knew who would believe, why wouldn't He "call" or "invite" those to believe. And why would He "call" or "invite" those who wouldn't believe? I have read and re-read your answer, but I don't feel I'm getting the understanding you may have intended. Could you elaborate a bit? Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 9:40:22 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1500
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
FreeGrace:
I think the key to Rom 8:30 is found in v.29, which begins with: "For whom He foreknew". I know the reformed understand "foreknew" as an intimate knowledge, kind of like the intimacy between husband and wife, but the word for "foreknew" is 'proginosko' and speaks of knowing "beforehand" what will occur. So it is quite acceptable to understand that God in His omniscience has always known who will believe His gospel, and it is to those He predestines, invites, justifes, and glorifies.
I saw the same thing. In other words, however you interpret the word "foreknew," it is only those whom He foreknew that are called. The call is limited to those whom He foreknew.
Not so fast, SH. The omniscience of God absolutely knows everyone, not just "some". My point is that He knows who will and won't believe in His Son.
Yes, and like you said,
"God in His omniscience has always known who will believe His gospel, and it is to those He predestines, invites, justifes, and glorifies" (emphasis added by SH).
Yes, God knows everyone, and knows who will believe and who will not, but He does not justify everyone. Only those who He foreknew, predestined and called.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 11:16:26 PM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 302
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The only answer I have heard is the angels do not know who is elect.
The verse says "there will be more joy in heaven".
Election must make God simply satisfied (even satisified?) one of his
elect creatures has done what it was predestined to do.
???
I think they rejoice because one of God's elect has been set free.A sinner has repented and Jesus Christ is glorified.One of the lost sheep has been found. A prodigal son came home to the Father.
You get the picture.
quote:
If election were true, God could be no more joyful when one of
his elect is saved than He could when the sun rises again.
You can't say election isn't true. It is in the bible. That is like saying if baptism were true. You may not agree with how Calvinists interpret it but you can't say that it is not true.
But I will ask you and Free a couple of questions.
Did Jesus foreknow that he would raise Lazarus from the dead?
Did Jesus predetermine to raise Lazarus from the dead?
If you answer yes then; then why did Jesus weep at the tomb?
Do you believe Jesus rejoiced with Mary, Lazarus, and Martha afterward?
According to your logic, if Jesus predetermined to raise Lazarus from the dead there should have been no more emotion in it than the sunrise tomorrow.
_____________________________
(John 8:11) Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 11:23:59 PM
|
|
|
Conquered
Posts: 233
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think you are mixing Scriptures to try to support your point. Your point doesn't seem to be relevant to my point about Adam retaining his free will after the fall. Your point is true for both believer and unbeliever, for when you or I sin, we are slaves to it. iow, we obey it. So your point is not relevant to my point. How can you show that Adam lost his ability to freely choose after the fall?
There is nothing to support Adam’s free will after he sinned.
quote:
God requires man to believe and He saves man. Since He is omniscient, He isn't "waiting around to see what man does", as some of the reformed keep repeating of the free will viewpoint, which is totally wrong.
He’s omniscient and omnipotent and in both he steers and directs according to his will.
quote:
quote:
You think that you have a crucial power within you in order to save yourself even if you think it is you doing the work .0001% of the time and Jesus is doing the other 99.9999%. You say this because you insist that the .0001% within you must come in your choice first before God can save you.
Where do you come up with this nonsense? Where do I mention any percentage? I don't, so please quit making up stuff that I don't support and then tell me what I think. Since I believe that God created man with the ability to believe and reject anything, why do you think that means I think believing is some "crucial power"?
It’s the inevitable conclusion of your view. At some point, you are forced to conclude that a fraction of the choice is yours.
quote:
Here we go again. The word for "appointed" is tasso, with a military root which is rendered "to assign, dispose to a certain position, set, addict (KJV) or devoted (NASB)" for 1 Cor 15:16.
A word with a military root which means to assign? set? Addict? No objection here.
quote:
Note that God is not mentioned in Acts 13:48
We appoint ourselves to eternal life? That’s not what the text says. And you wonder why I don’t believe that a choice can be co-mingled with the power of the cross?
quote:
So, the Gentiles performed the action of "appointment" on themselves. iow, they "lined up or set themselves" for eternal life.
Let me just quote your response back to you: “The text does not support or prove your theory.” I don’t believe in a “by works” salvation.
quote:
I certainly agree with Paul when he included the entire human race in who can be justified freely through faith in Christ's blood, per Rom 3:23-25. Do you?
No. I don’t believe in universalism.
….those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. –Romans 8:30
If God justified the entire human race, then you are forced to conclude by Scripture that the entire human race is saved.
_____________________________
A blog meditating on the wonders of Jesus Christ and the magnificence of his cross:
www.sevenmeditations.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 11:44:04 PM
|
|
|
Conquered
Posts: 233
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Simply untrue. Cornelius proves your theory wrong. As an unbeliever he recognized the true God and honored Him. The result was that God "invited" him to believe the gospel through Peter.
1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. - Acts 10:1-2
Cornelius already possessed faith, just as the OT saints who never saw the object of their faith. But in his case, he was blessed to receive the Spirit after the Lord Jesus' ressurection.
And Cornelius' baptism into the Holy Spirit is a horrible example for you, for where does the text say that he was invited? When did Peter say this in his preaching? Cornelius heard the message and "the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message." There was no consideration of any invitation, no careful deliberation. There was only the hearing of the Gospel and an instant response according to the faith he already posessed.
_____________________________
A blog meditating on the wonders of Jesus Christ and the magnificence of his cross:
www.sevenmeditations.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 11:45:57 PM
|
|
|
Conquered
Posts: 233
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes, God knows everyone, and knows who will believe and who will not, but He does not justify everyone. Only those who He foreknew, predestined and called.
Amen.
_____________________________
A blog meditating on the wonders of Jesus Christ and the magnificence of his cross:
www.sevenmeditations.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2008 6:18:08 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6425
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
Manna -
If heaven rejoices over one repentant sinner,
why wouldn't God rejoice, too?
If God rejoices, then why?
If God does not rejoice, then why not?
Good question, rw! I voiced the same thing a while back. If the calvinistic view of election is true, why do angels rejoice over 1 sinner who repents, since it would all have been "predetermined" in eternity past. None of the reformed could give a reasonable answer. I'll be curious what Manna says.
Rejoicing angels in calvinism doesn't make any sense.
The only answer I have heard is the angels do not know who is elect.
Does that answer really make any sense? One would think that God's plan has been revealed to angels, at least to some level. Oh, and btw, since the Bible is available for angels to read (you know, over our shoulders  ), maybe they aren't quite as smart as some of our reformed brethren on this thread who have said that they came to their understanding of reformed theology all on their own just by reading their Bibles, even before they ever heard of John C Calvin. So, maybe angels aren't all that smart, eh?
No, that is nonsense. The angels are much more intelligent than any human. If the reformed notion of election were true, the angels would certainly have known, if only by reading over our shoulders. That still doesn't explain why they rejoice when a sinner repents.
The only reasonable explanation is that the angels know that mankind was created with free will to believe or reject. So, when a human believes, they rejoice.
quote:
The verse says "there will be more joy in heaven".
Election must make God simply satisfied (even satisified?) one of his
elect creatures has done what it was predestined to do.
Neither verse in Luke 15 speaks of God being satisfied. The point was that the angels rejoice in heaven over 1 sinner who repents.
quote:
If election were true, God could be no more joyful when one of
his elect is saved than He could when the sun rises again.
Well, election is true, but just not the reformed version. But your statement here demonstrates the problem that reformed theology has with Luke 15:7 and 10. If they were right, why would their be any rejoicing, since it is all a "done deal"?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2008 6:20:07 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6425
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
quote:
Are you saying that "the called" are those whose eyes and ears God has opened?
Not in any "absolute" sense, but generally. Since it cannot be argued that God always knew who would believe, why wouldn't He "call" or "invite" those to believe. And why would He "call" or "invite" those who wouldn't believe? I have read and re-read your answer, but I don't feel I'm getting the understanding you may have intended. Could you elaborate a bit? Thanks
I'm not sure I can make it any more clear. Since God knows already who will believe and not, does it make any sense for Him to "call" or "invite" those who won't believe? It does make sense that He would "call" or "invite" those who will believe. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2008 6:23:52 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6425
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
FreeGrace:
I think the key to Rom 8:30 is found in v.29, which begins with: "For whom He foreknew". I know the reformed understand "foreknew" as an intimate knowledge, kind of like the intimacy between husband and wife, but the word for "foreknew" is 'proginosko' and speaks of knowing "beforehand" what will occur. So it is quite acceptable to understand that God in His omniscience has always known who will believe His gospel, and it is to those He predestines, invites, justifes, and glorifies.
I saw the same thing. In other words, however you interpret the word "foreknew," it is only those whom He foreknew that are called. The call is limited to those whom He foreknew.
Not so fast, SH. The omniscience of God absolutely knows everyone, not just "some". My point is that He knows who will and won't believe in His Son.
Yes, and like you said,
"God in His omniscience has always known who will believe His gospel, and it is to those He predestines, invites, justifes, and glorifies" (emphasis added by SH).
Yes, God knows everyone, and knows who will believe and who will not, but He does not justify everyone. Only those who He foreknew, predestined and called.
Again, not so fast, SH. Only those who He foreknew who would believe, predestined and called."
We all know that God doesn't justifiy everyone. Paul was clear in Rom 3 about how anyone is justified, which is through faith in His blood. My point is that he included the entire human race in who would be justified through faith. The key remains to be faith. But Paul clearly indicated that all could be justified through faith. There is potential, something the reformed keep rejecting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2008 6:30:27 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6425
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
But I will ask you and Free a couple of questions.
Did Jesus foreknow that he would raise Lazarus from the dead?
Did Jesus predetermine to raise Lazarus from the dead?
Clearly, the answers are "yes" because Jesus is omniscient.
quote:
If you answer yes then; then why did Jesus weep at the tomb?
Because Jesus was also fully human, and had human emotions and felt just what any other human would feel at the death of a loved one.
quote:
Do you believe Jesus rejoiced with Mary, Lazarus, and Martha afterward?
Yes, because He was fully human and experienced the same range of emotions that all humans do.
And none of this line of questioning has anything to do with why angels in heaven rejoice over 1 sinner who repents. They aren't human and we cannot say that they have human emotions. They are angels and live in heaven with God. Should be fairly obvious that they would be privy to much of God's plan. They certainly are able to read the Bible (over our shoulders) and know what God's Word says. So if your notion of election were correct, you cannot explain why they rejoice. The fact that the sinner is set free doesn't satisfactorily explain it, since it was a "predetermined" action. As a "done deal" of course it would happen. So again, why the rejoicing when it's all guaranteed anyway?
Do the angels rejoice when the sun comes up? Do we humans?
quote:
According to your logic, if Jesus predetermined to raise Lazarus from the dead there should have been no more emotion in it than the sunrise tomorrow.
What you apparently missed is that I was noting what the Bible has indicated, not using some form of human "logic", which can be quite flawed, as we all know. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2008 6:45:35 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6425
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Conquered
quote:
I think you are mixing Scriptures to try to support your point. Your point doesn't seem to be relevant to my point about Adam retaining his free will after the fall. Your point is true for both believer and unbeliever, for when you or I sin, we are slaves to it. iow, we obey it. So your point is not relevant to my point. How can you show that Adam lost his ability to freely choose after the fall?
There is nothing to support Adam’s free will after he sinned.
With closed eyes, that is easy to "claim". I asked you how can you show that Adam lost his ability to freely choose. You don't see any support for free will because you aren't paying attention. Adam hid from the Lord. That was a freely made decision. He also answered the Lord's questions, another decision. The evidence is all around you. But you must open your eyes and look for it.
quote:
quote:
quote:
You think that you have a crucial power within you in order to save yourself even if you think it is you doing the work .0001% of the time and Jesus is doing the other 99.9999%. You say this because you insist that the .0001% within you must come in your choice first before God can save you.
Where do you come up with this nonsense? Where do I mention any percentage? I don't, so please quit making up stuff that I don't support and then tell me what I think. Since I believe that God created man with the ability to believe and reject anything, why do you think that means I think believing is some "crucial power"?
It’s the inevitable conclusion of your view.
It is the inevitable faulty conclusion you have of my view only. Nothing more.
quote:
At some point, you are forced to conclude that a fraction of the choice is yours.
Since I am convinced that God created mankind with the ability to choose freely, there are no fractions to speak of. The choice is fully ours. But your point seems to be that because the choice is ours to receive the free gift of eternal life, that in itself somehow "couples" with the cross to effect our salvation, when that is totally false. God saves on the basis of who believes, but that doesn't mean that one's faith causes their salvation. I hope you can understand that.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Here we go again. The word for "appointed" is tasso, with a military root which is rendered "to assign, dispose to a certain position, set, addict (KJV) or devoted (NASB)" for 1 Cor 15:16.
A word with a military root which means to assign? set? Addict? No objection here.
Note that God is not mentioned in Acts 13:48
We appoint ourselves to eternal life? That’s not what the text says. And you wonder why I don’t believe that a choice can be co-mingled with the power of the cross?
I never said we appoint ourselves to eternal life. The Gentiles were disposed to eternal life, just as Paul indicted the Jews of judging themselves unworthy of eternal life. The contrast is stark. There are lexicons that indicate that "tasso" in Acts 13:48 means to be "disposed to". So, the Gentiles weren't "self appointing", but they were inclined, disposed, or willing to have eternal life. The context supports this. See v.43 and 44. They begged Paul to return the next Sabbath, and "nearly the whole town turned out". If that isn't interest or inclination, I don't know what is.
quote:
quote:
So, the Gentiles performed the action of "appointment" on themselves. iow, they "lined up or set themselves" for eternal life.
Let me just quote your response back to you: “The text does not support or prove your theory.” I don’t believe in a “by works” salvation.
They were inclined to what Paul was teaching, which the context supports. They were interested in eternal life. That isn't a works salvation. The text very clearly says they believed. Please pay attention.
[quoe]quote:
I certainly agree with Paul when he included the entire human race in who can be justified freely through faith in Christ's blood, per Rom 3:23-25. Do you?
No. I don’t believe in universalism.
Nor do I. Are you paying attention? Paul isn't saying that. He is including the human race in who can be justified, which is throughf faith. How do you conclude that is universalism? If you would pay attention, you would realize that he is saying that anyone in the human race can be justified through faith. He is NOT saying that all will be.
quote:
….those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. –Romans 8:30
Back up 1 verse to "for whom He foreknew".
quote:
If God justified the entire human race, then you are forced to conclude by Scripture that the entire human race is saved.
I just wish the reformed could pay attention. I have never said Paul was teaching universalism in that text. It is clear that he wasn't. Why do you continue to think I think he was? Paul was indicating who could be justified through faith.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2008 6:52:20 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 6425
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Conquered
quote:
Simply untrue. Cornelius proves your theory wrong. As an unbeliever he recognized the true God and honored Him. The result was that God "invited" him to believe the gospel through Peter.
1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. - Acts 10:1-2
Cornelius already possessed faith, just as the OT saints who never saw the object of their faith. But in his case, he was blessed to receive the Spirit after the Lord Jesus' ressurection.
This answer demonstrates lack of understanding of Scripture, because in Acts 11:1-18 Peter explains to his fellow Jews his actions with Cornelius. Please note in v.14 what Cornelius told Peter when he came; "He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved." So you are incorrect about Cornelius already possessing faith. He was unsaved until he heard and responded BY FAITH the message Peter preached.
quote:
There was only the hearing of the Gospel and an instant response according to the faith he already posessed.
Please pay attention to the text. He was unsaved until he heard the message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2008 7:02:21 AM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 302
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. - Acts 10:1-2
Cornelius already possessed faith, just as the OT saints who never saw the object of their faith. But in his case, he was blessed to receive the Spirit after the Lord Jesus' ressurection.
And Cornelius' baptism into the Holy Spirit is a horrible example for you, for where does the text say that he was invited? When did Peter say this in his preaching? Cornelius heard the message and "the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message." There was no consideration of any invitation, no careful deliberation. There was only the hearing of the Gospel and an instant response according to the faith he already posessed.
I agree with you Conquered. Could I add one thing?
Peter in his vision was told to not call that unclean which God had cleaned (referring to Cornelius). Cornelius didn't cleanse himself and Cornelius didn't line himself up for salvation. God did it from first to last.
It was wrong for Peter to refer to that which God had cleansed as common but I believe it is just is wrong to say that Cornelius did the cleansing when God said that He did.
_____________________________
(John 8:11) Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2008 7:55:48 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1500
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
FreeGrace:
I think the key to Rom 8:30 is found in v.29, which begins with: "For whom He foreknew". I know the reformed understand "foreknew" as an intimate knowledge, kind of like the intimacy between husband and wife, but the word for "foreknew" is 'proginosko' and speaks of knowing "beforehand" what will occur. So it is quite acceptable to understand that God in His omniscience has always known who will believe His gospel, and it is to those He predestines, invites, justifes, and glorifies.
I saw the same thing. In other words, however you interpret the word "foreknew," it is only those whom He foreknew that are called. The call is limited to those whom He foreknew.
Not so fast, SH. The omniscience of God absolutely knows everyone, not just "some". My point is that He knows who will and won't believe in His Son.
Yes, and like you said,
"God in His omniscience has always known who will believe His gospel, and it is to those He predestines, invites, justifes, and glorifies" (emphasis added by SH).
Yes, God knows everyone, and knows who will believe and who will not, but He does not justify everyone. Only those who He foreknew, predestined and called.
Again, not so fast, SH. Only those who He foreknew who would believe, predestined and called."
I'll slow down for you. You seem to agree with me. God only calls those whom He foreknew. However you view "foreknew" does not really matter - only those whom God foreknew are those whom He calls.
quote:
We all know that God doesn't justifiy everyone. Paul was clear in Rom 3 about how anyone is justified, which is through faith in His blood. My point is that he included the entire human race in who would be justified through faith. The key remains to be faith. But Paul clearly indicated that all could be justified through faith. There is potential, something the reformed keep rejecting.
You have inadvertently agreed with the reformed playbook (did you get yours at CBD also?). Romans 3 and 8 do not show that all have the potential of justification. If anything, your argument concerning Rom 8:29-30 proves just the opposite.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2008 8:46:27 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1615
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
but to those divinely selected and appointed
This definition makes the most sense and it fits with the Romans 8:30 passage.
But to those who are divinely selected and appointed Christ is the power of God and wisdom of God. Those that have this call will be justified and finally glorified.
quote:
FreeGrace: If you include Rom 8:29 with "for whom He foreknew" it all falls into place. God in His omniscience knows perfectly all who will respond to His gospel. It all begins with His foreknowledge.
quote:
FreeGrace : I think the key to Rom 8:30 is found in v.29, which begins with: "For whom He foreknew". I know the reformed understand "foreknew" as an intimate knowledge, kind of like the intimacy between husband and wife, but the word for "foreknew" is 'proginosko' and speaks of knowing "beforehand" what will occur. So it is quite acceptable to understand that God in His omniscience has always known who will believe His gospel, and it is to those He predestines, invites, justifes, and glorifies.
Wouldn't this explanation mean that the "called" or invited are the ones that God "foreknows" will respond? In the last sentence of yours (FreeGrace) that I have quoted you seem to be saying that God has always known who the believers will be and therefore he predestines, invites (= called, right?), justifies, and glorifies them. That is to say that the ones who are predestined, justified, and glorified are the ones that receive the call? That seems to be basically the same conclusion that tdd1975 reaches or am I missing something?
I saw the same thing. In other words, however you interpret the word "foreknew," it is only those whom He foreknew that are called. The call is limited to those whom He foreknew.
Anytime the gospel is preached , all who hear it are called to believe it . If the listeners include a thousand unbelievers , all one thousand are called to believe it : for God's word says that , And the times of this ignorancew God winked at ; but now commandeth all men every where to repent : because he hath appointed a day , in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained . And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations ; and then shall the end come .
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/14/2008 9:16:25 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1615
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have already said that I agreed with the definition of called being invited. But what it doesn't mean is accept, receive, respond, or believe. Jesus said many are called and Paul says not many called. Either there is a contradiction (which neither of us believe) or we have to understand what is meant by called in each text.
Paul never says that not many are called period : he says not many wise or mighty or noble . That leaves multitudes to be called , which agree's perfectly with Jesus when he says Many are called but few are chosen .
quote:
There is a general call that goes out to all.
(Mark 16:15) And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
That is the call that goes out and brings one to the point of "(John 10:3) To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out."
No one is one His sheep until they believe .
quote:
That is not the issue here. We are talking about the "but to those who are called" in verse 24. How does someone believe before they are called to believe?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God , it pleased by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe .
Everyone who has ever heard the gospel preached has been called to believe it .
quote:
quote:
To understand Romans 8:30 , it is important to understand what the predestination in v. 29 is too . It is the predestination of believers to be conformed to the image of Christ . It is not a predestination to salvation . In v. 30 , it is evident from the language that called , justified , and glorified , are all expressed in the past tense ; which most likely means that Paul is viewing these things from the end of the age ; when it will be evident that those predestined to conformity to Christ were indeed called , justified , and glorified .
quote:
What do you mean not to salvation? Justification is salvation. I am pretty sure you believe this so perhaps I am not following you on this one.
If you are equating final glorification and being conformed to Christ, there is still the means of getting there through calling and justification. Arminians generally say that not all that get called get justified and not all that get justified get glorified (because they lose their salvation). But the text doesn't say some that were called were justified and some that were justified get glorified. Paul says "and those whom" referring to the same group of people.
Because the predestination is not to salvation ; it is the predestination of believers to conformity to the image of Christ . There is no need to confuse conformity with justification : one is justified completely at the moment of belief , a believer never gets more justified : conformity to the image of Christ is the believers ultimate glorification , though believers should be showing bits of this image as they grow in faith .
Its not what Arminians or anyone else says that counts , its what Jesus plainly said "For many are called but few are chosen."
Paul says "and those whom" (don't stop there) "he did foreknow" (which would be believers) he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son .
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
